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 |
Alcoholic versus aqueous chlorhexidine for skin antisepsis: the AVALANCHE trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Canadian Medical Association Journal, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1503/cmaj.161460 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Daniel Charles, Clare F. Heal, Meth Delpachitra, Michael Wohlfahrt, Debbie Kimber, Julie Sullivan, Sheldon Browning, Sabine Saednia, Alexandra Hardy, Jennifer Banks, Petra Buttner |
| Abstract |
Preoperative skin antisepsis is routine practice. We compared alcoholic chlorhexidine with aqueous chlorhexidine for skin antisepsis to prevent surgical site infection after minor skin excisions in general practice. We conducted this prospective, multicentre, randomized controlled trial in 4 private general practices in North Queensland, Australia, from October 2015 to August 2016. Consecutive adult patients presenting for minor skin excisions were randomly assigned to undergo preoperative skin antisepsis with 0.5% chlorhexidine in 70% ethanol (intervention) or 0.5% chlorhexidine aqueous solution (control). Our primary outcome was surgical site infection within 30 days of excision. We also measured the incidence of adverse reactions. A total of 916 patients were included in the study: 454 underwent antisepsis with alcoholic chlorhexidine and 462 with aqueous chlorhexidine. Of these, 909 completed follow-up. In the intention-to-treat analysis of cases available at follow-up, there was no significant difference in the incidence of surgical site infection between the alcoholic chlorhexidine arm (5.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.6% to 7.9%) and the aqueous chlorhexidine arm (6.8%, 95% CI 4.5% to 9.1%). The attributable risk reduction was 0.010 (95% CI -0.021 to 0.042), the relative risk was 0.85 (95% CI 0.51 to 1.41), and the number needed to treat to benefit was 100. Per protocol and sensitivity analyses produced similar results. The incidence of adverse reactions was low, with no difference between groups (p = 0.6). There was no significant difference in efficacy between alcoholic and aqueous chlorhexidine for the prevention of surgical site infection after minor skin excisions in general practice. Trial registration: https://www.anzctr.org.au, no. ACTRN12615001045505. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 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 | 9 | 26% |
| Canada | 4 | 11% |
| Argentina | 3 | 9% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 16 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 25 | 71% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 23% |
| Scientists | 2 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 90 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 13% |
| Researcher | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 16 | 18% |
| Unknown | 33 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 16% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 4% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 4 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Unknown | 35 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. 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 19 November 2017.
All research outputs
#1,023,895
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#1,462
of 9,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,554
of 328,696 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#23
of 114 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,541 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 328,696 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 114 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.