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 |
Prevention of Central Line–Associated Bloodstream Infections Through Quality Improvement Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Infectious Diseases, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1093/cid/ciu239 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Koen Blot, Jochen Bergs, Dirk Vogelaers, Stijn Blot, Dominique Vandijck |
| Abstract |
This systematic review and meta-analysis examines the impact of quality improvement interventions on central line-associated bloodstream infections in adult intensive care units. Studies were identified through Medline and manual searches (1995-June 2012). Random-effects meta-analysis obtained pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Meta-regression assessed the impact of bundle/checklist interventions and high baseline rates on intervention effect. Forty-one before-after studies identified an infection rate decrease (OR, 0.39 [95% CI, .33-.46]; P < .001). This effect was more pronounced for trials implementing a bundle or checklist approach (P = .03). Furthermore, meta-analysis of 6 interrupted time series studies revealed an infection rate reduction 3 months postintervention (OR, 0.30 [95% CI, .10-.88]; P = .03). There was no difference in infection rates between studies with low or high baseline rates (P = .18). These results suggest that quality improvement interventions contribute to the prevention of central line-associated bloodstream infections. Implementation of care bundles and checklists appears to yield stronger risk reductions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 13% |
| United States | 1 | 13% |
| Belgium | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 50% |
| Scientists | 2 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 210 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 203 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 31 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 25 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 11% |
| Researcher | 22 | 10% |
| Other | 17 | 8% |
| Other | 43 | 20% |
| Unknown | 49 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 76 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 45 | 21% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 18 | 9% |
| Unknown | 57 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 December 2021.
All research outputs
#2,435,362
of 22,753,345 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Infectious Diseases
#4,056
of 15,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,309
of 228,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Infectious Diseases
#57
of 270 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,753,345 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,768 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 228,038 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 270 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.