↓ Skip to main content

Intravascular device administration sets: replacement after standard versus prolonged use in hospitalised patients—a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (The RSVP Trial)

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
161 Mendeley
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.
Title
Intravascular device administration sets: replacement after standard versus prolonged use in hospitalised patients—a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (The RSVP Trial)
Published in
BMJ Open, February 2015
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007257
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claire M Rickard, Nicole M Marsh, Joan Webster, Nicole C Gavin, Matthew R McGrail, Emily Larsen, Amanda Corley, Debbie Long, John R Gowardman, Marghie Murgo, John F Fraser, Raymond J Chan, Marianne C Wallis, Jeanine Young, David McMillan, Li Zhang, Md Abu Choudhury, Nicholas Graves, E Geoffrey Playford

Abstract

Vascular access devices (VADs), such as peripheral or central venous catheters, are vital across all medical and surgical specialties. To allow therapy or haemodynamic monitoring, VADs frequently require administration sets (AS) composed of infusion tubing, fluid containers, pressure-monitoring transducers and/or burettes. While VADs are replaced only when necessary, AS are routinely replaced every 3-4 days in the belief that this reduces infectious complications. Strong evidence supports AS use up to 4 days, but there is less evidence for AS use beyond 4 days. AS replacement twice weekly increases hospital costs and workload.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 159 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 23 14%
Student > Master 18 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 9%
Other 14 9%
Researcher 13 8%
Other 30 19%
Unknown 48 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 41 25%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 2%
Psychology 3 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Other 14 9%
Unknown 54 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 February 2015.
All research outputs
#18,395,201
of 22,785,242 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#19,504
of 22,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,622
of 352,352 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#212
of 237 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,785,242 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 352,352 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 237 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.