| Title |
A state of the art review on optimal practices to prevent, recognize, and manage complications associated with intravascular devices in the critically ill
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Intensive Care Medicine, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00134-018-5212-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jean-François Timsit, Mark Rupp, Emilio Bouza, Vineet Chopra, Tarja Kärpänen, Kevin Laupland, Thiago Lisboa, Leonard Mermel, Olivier Mimoz, Jean-Jacques Parienti, Garyphalia Poulakou, Bertrand Souweine, Walter Zingg |
| Abstract |
Intravascular catheters are inserted into almost all critically ill patients. This review provides up-to-date insight into available knowledge on epidemiology and diagnosis of complications of central vein and arterial catheters in ICU. It discusses the optimal therapy of catheter-related infections and thrombosis. Prevention of complications is a multidisciplinary task that combines both improvement of the process of care and introduction of new technologies. We emphasize the main component of the prevention strategies that should be used in critical care and propose areas of future investigation in this field. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 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 | 9 | 20% |
| Australia | 3 | 7% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 7% |
| Spain | 2 | 4% |
| Mexico | 2 | 4% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Ireland | 1 | 2% |
| Colombia | 1 | 2% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 20 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 28 | 62% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 20% |
| Scientists | 7 | 16% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 163 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 20 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 10% |
| Researcher | 15 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 7% |
| Other | 39 | 24% |
| Unknown | 47 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 54 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 28 | 17% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 3% |
| Engineering | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 13 | 8% |
| Unknown | 53 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 11 November 2019.
All research outputs
#1,508,736
of 25,364,936 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#1,313
of 5,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,909
of 339,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#57
of 125 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,364,936 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,408 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 339,238 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 125 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.