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 |
Microbiological comparison of hand-drying methods: the potential for contamination of the environment, user, and bystander
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Hospital Infection, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jhin.2014.08.002 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
E.L. Best, P. Parnell, M.H. Wilcox |
| Abstract |
The efficiency of hand drying is important in preventing pathogen spread, but knowledge surrounding which drying methods contribute least towards contamination of the environment and users is limited. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 334 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 | 62 | 19% |
| Japan | 33 | 10% |
| United Kingdom | 18 | 5% |
| Canada | 13 | 4% |
| Australia | 8 | 2% |
| Germany | 4 | 1% |
| France | 4 | 1% |
| China | 3 | <1% |
| Norway | 3 | <1% |
| Other | 33 | 10% |
| Unknown | 153 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 296 | 89% |
| Scientists | 21 | 6% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 11 | 3% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 110 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 21 | 18% |
| Researcher | 18 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 11% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 23 | 20% |
| Unknown | 24 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 16 | 14% |
| Engineering | 10 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 20 | 18% |
| Unknown | 32 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 637. 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 27 December 2022.
All research outputs
#35,191
of 25,795,662 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Hospital Infection
#9
of 4,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#214
of 248,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Hospital Infection
#1
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,795,662 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,087 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 248,050 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.