↓ Skip to main content

Electrical muscle stimulation in thomboprophylaxis: review and a derived hypothesis about thrombogenesis—the 4th factor

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Electrical muscle stimulation in thomboprophylaxis: review and a derived hypothesis about thrombogenesis—the 4th factor
Published in
SpringerPlus, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40064-016-2521-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christos Stefanou

Abstract

Electrical muscle stimulation (EMS) is an FDA-approved thromboprophylactic method. Thrombus pathogenesis is considered to depend on factors related to components of the vessel wall, the velocity of blood, and blood consistency-collectively known as, the Virchow's triad. The testimony supporting the thromboprophylactic effects of the EMS is reviewed. An emphasis is placed on the fact that, EMS has demonstrated, in certain circumstances, an efficacy rate that cannot be fully explained by the Virchow's triad; also that, in reviewing relevant evidence and the theorized pathophysiological mechanisms, several findings collectively point to a potentially missed point. Remarkably, venous thromboembolic disease (VTE) is extremely more common in the lower versus the upper extremities even when the blood velocities equalize; EMS had synergistic effects with intermittent compressive devices, despite their presumed identical mechanism of action; sleep is not thrombogenic; non-peroperative EMS is meaningful only if applied ≥5 times daily; neural insult increases VTEs more than the degree expected by the hypomobility-related blood stasis; etc. These phenomena infer the presence of a 4th thrombogenetic factor: neural supply to the veins provides direct antithrombic effects, by inducing periodic vessel diameter changes and/or by neuro-humoral, chemically acting factors. EMS may stimulate or substitute the 4th factor. This evidence-based hypothesis is analyzed. A novel pathophysiologic mechanism of thrombogenesis is supported; and, based on this, the role of EMS in thromboprophylaxis is expanded. Exploration of this mechanism may provide new targets for intervention.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 22%
Student > Master 4 17%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 4%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 6 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 13%
Neuroscience 2 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 6 26%
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 01 July 2016.
All research outputs
#15,379,002
of 22,879,161 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#935
of 1,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#223,171
of 352,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#128
of 237 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,879,161 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,850 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 352,727 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 237 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.