↓ Skip to main content

The Impact of Central Venous Catheters on Pediatric Venous Thromboembolism

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pediatrics, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
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.
Title
The Impact of Central Venous Catheters on Pediatric Venous Thromboembolism
Published in
Frontiers in Pediatrics, January 2017
DOI 10.3389/fped.2017.00005
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julie Jaffray, Mary Bauman, Patti Massicotte

Abstract

The use of central venous catheters (CVCs) in children is escalating, which is likely linked to the increased incidence of pediatric venous thromboembolism (VTE). In order to better understand the specific risk factors associated with CVC-VTE in children, as well as available prevention methods, a literature review was performed. The overall incidence of CVC-VTE was found to range from 0 to 74%, depending on the patient population, CVC type, imaging modality, and study design. Throughout the available literature, there was not a consistent determination regarding whether a particular type of central line (tunneled vs. non-tunneled vs. peripherally inserted vs. implanted), catheter material, insertion technique, or insertion location lead to an increased VTE risk. The patient populations who were found to be most at risk for CVC-VTE were those with cancer, congenital heart disease, gastrointestinal failure, systemic infection, intensive care unit admission, or involved in a trauma. Both mechanical and pharmacological prophylactic techniques have been shown to be successful in preventing VTE in adult patients, but studies in children have yet to be performed or are underpowered. In order to better determine true CVC-VTE risk factors and best preventative techniques, an increase in large, prospective pediatric trials needs to be performed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 83 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 16%
Other 12 14%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Student > Master 5 6%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 27 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 43%
Engineering 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Psychology 2 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 34 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 28 February 2022.
All research outputs
#18,734,471
of 23,221,875 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#3,473
of 6,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#310,699
of 420,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#36
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,221,875 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,228 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 420,144 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.