| Title |
Intravenous Infusion Administration: A Comparative Study of Practices and Errors Between the United States and England and Their Implications for Patient Safety
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drug Safety, June 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40264-019-00841-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ann Blandford, Patricia C. Dykes, Bryony Dean Franklin, Dominic Furniss, Galal H. Galal-Edeen, Kumiko O. Schnock, David W. Bates |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 Kingdom | 9 | 41% |
| United States | 4 | 18% |
| Japan | 1 | 5% |
| Ireland | 1 | 5% |
| Sweden | 1 | 5% |
| Spain | 1 | 5% |
| South Africa | 1 | 5% |
| India | 1 | 5% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 2 | 9% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 64% |
| Scientists | 5 | 23% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
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 | 11 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 8% |
| Researcher | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 16 | 18% |
| Unknown | 37 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 9% |
| Engineering | 8 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Unknown | 39 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 31 July 2019.
All research outputs
#2,392,122
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Drug Safety
#251
of 1,747 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,574
of 356,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Safety
#5
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,747 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 356,628 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 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.