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 |
Colour coding for blood collection tube closures – a call for harmonisation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1515/cclm-2014-0927 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ana-Maria Simundic, Michael P. Cornes, Kjell Grankvist, Giuseppe Lippi, Mads Nybo, Ferruccio Ceriotti, Elvar Theodorsson, Mauro Panteghini |
| Abstract |
Abstract At least one in 10 patients experience adverse events while receiving hospital care. Many of the errors are related to laboratory diagnostics. Efforts to reduce laboratory errors over recent decades have primarily focused on the measurement process while pre- and post-analytical errors including errors in sampling, reporting and decision-making have received much less attention. Proper sampling and additives to the samples are essential. Tubes and additives are identified not only in writing on the tubes but also by the colour of the tube closures. Unfortunately these colours have not been standardised, running the risk of error when tubes from one manufacturer are replaced by the tubes from another manufacturer that use different colour coding. EFLM therefore supports the worldwide harmonisation of the colour coding for blood collection tube closures and labels in order to reduce the risk of pre-analytical errors and improve the patient safety. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Croatia | 3 | 75% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 17% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 17% |
| Unknown | 12 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 25% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 6% |
| Engineering | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 14 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 06 January 2015.
All research outputs
#8,426,836
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
#548
of 2,902 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,584
of 268,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
#4
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,902 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 268,209 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.