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 |
Advantages and disadvantages of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) compared to other central venous lines: A systematic review of the literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Acta Oncologica, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.3109/0284186x.2013.773072 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eva Johansson, Fredrik Hammarskjöld, Dag Lundberg, Marianne Heibert Arnlind |
| Abstract |
The use of central venous lines carries a significant risk for serious complications and high economic costs. Lately, the peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICC) has gained in popularity due to presumed advantages over other central venous lines. The aim of this systematic literature review was to identify scientific evidence justifying the use of PICC. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 262 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Ecuador | 2 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 255 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 45 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 32 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 23 | 9% |
| Other | 22 | 8% |
| Researcher | 20 | 8% |
| Other | 52 | 20% |
| Unknown | 68 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 105 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 45 | 17% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 3% |
| Engineering | 5 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 28 | 11% |
| Unknown | 68 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 March 2013.
All research outputs
#13,380,136
of 22,701,287 outputs
Outputs from Acta Oncologica
#970
of 1,747 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,953
of 195,351 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Oncologica
#12
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,701,287 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,747 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 195,351 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.