The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Anticoagulation Management and Monitoring during Pediatric Extracorporeal Life Support: A Review of Current Issues
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Pediatrics, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fped.2016.00067 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lindsay M. Ryerson, Laurence L. Lequier |
| Abstract |
Anticoagulation is an imperfect science and is even more complicated in neonates and young children. The addition of the extracorporeal life support (ECLS) foreign circuit adds an additional layer of complexity. Anticoagulation goals during ECLS are to maintain a clot-free circuit and a hemostatically balanced patient. Unfractionated heparin (UFH) is the default gold standard anticoagulant as no large studies have been performed on any other anticoagulants. This review will focus on the advantages and disadvantages of the various methods to monitor UFH anticoagulation, discuss alternative anticoagulants, and examine bleeding and thrombotic complications during ECLS. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 29% |
| Turkey | 1 | 14% |
| Italy | 1 | 14% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 43% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 29% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 45 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 26% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 11% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 11 | 24% |
| Unknown | 6 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 57% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 9 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 July 2016.
All research outputs
#6,122,845
of 22,879,161 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#1,011
of 5,997 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,982
of 352,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#7
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,879,161 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,997 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 352,770 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.