↓ Skip to main content

Predictive Value of Mean Platelet Volume for Pulmonary Embolism Recurrence

Overview of attention for article published in Lung, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
Title
Predictive Value of Mean Platelet Volume for Pulmonary Embolism Recurrence
Published in
Lung, June 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00408-017-0020-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Omer Araz, Fadime Sultan Albez, Elif Yilmazel Ucar, Bugra Kerget, Nafiye Yılmaz, Metin Akgun

Abstract

Recurrence is a major clinical problem in patients with pulmonary embolism and can affect mortality. The decision to discontinue treatment is important for recurrence and is based on patients' clinical features as well as certain blood parameters. Our aim in this study was to evaluate whether mean platelet volume (MPV) and platelet distribution width (PDW) have utility as new predictive parameters for recurrence and mortality in pulmonary embolism. A total of 440 patients with pulmonary embolism underwent computed tomography, Doppler ultrasonography, and echocardiography before and at the conclusion of treatment. Thrombocyte count, MPV, PDW, and D-dimer parameters were also evaluated at the same time points. MPV and PDW were significantly higher in deceased patients (8.8 ± 1.2 fl and 17.4 ± 0.8) compared to surviving patients (7.7 ± 0.9 fl and 17 ± 0.9) (p < 0.0001). Initial MPV and PDW were also significantly higher in patients with recurrence (8.4 ± 0.7 vs 7.6 ± 0.8 fl, p < 0.0001 and 17.3 ± 0.8 vs 16.9 ± 0.9, p = 0.002, respectively) than in patients without recurrence. At the end of treatment, MPV was still higher in patients with recurrence compared to patients without recurrence (8.7 ± 0.5 and 7.5 ± 0.7 fl, respectively, p < 0.0001). MPV values over 8.05 fl at the end of treatment predicted recurrence with 91% sensitivity and 77% specificity. MPV seems to be an indicator of recurrence in pulmonary embolism and may have utility in the prediction of recurrence. Elevated MPV can also be used to predict mortality in pulmonary embolism.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 2 22%
Researcher 2 22%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 22%
Student > Postgraduate 1 11%
Other 1 11%
Other 1 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 78%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 22%

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 08 May 2018.
All research outputs
#10,300,296
of 12,908,018 outputs
Outputs from Lung
#438
of 596 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,072
of 269,771 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lung
#16
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,908,018 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 596 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 269,771 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.