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 |
Central venous Access device SeCurement And Dressing Effectiveness (CASCADE) in paediatrics: protocol for pilot randomised controlled trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMJ Open, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011197 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Amanda J Ullman, Tricia Kleidon, Victoria Gibson, Debbie A Long, Tara Williams, Craig A McBride, Andrew Hallahan, Gabor Mihala, Marie Cooke, Claire M Rickard |
| Abstract |
Paediatric central venous access devices (CVADs) are associated with a 25% incidence of failure. Securement and dressing are strategies used to reduce failure and complication; however, innovative technologies have not been evaluated for their effectiveness across device types. The primary aim of this research is to evaluate the feasibility of launching a full-scale randomised controlled efficacy trial across three CVAD types regarding CVAD securement and dressing, using predefined feasibility criteria. Three feasibility randomised, controlled trials are to be undertaken at the Royal Children's Hospital and the Lady Cilento Children's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. CVAD securement and dressing interventions under examination compare current practice with sutureless securement devices, integrated securement dressings and tissue adhesive. In total, 328 paediatric patients requiring a peripherally inserted central catheter (n=100); non-tunnelled CVAD (n=180) and tunnelled CVAD (n=48) to be inserted will be recruited and randomly allocated to CVAD securement and dressing products. Primary outcomes will be study feasibility measured by eligibility, recruitment, retention, attrition, missing data, parent/staff satisfaction and effect size. CVAD failure and complication (catheter-associated bloodstream infection, local infection, venous thrombosis, occlusion, dislodgement and breakage) will be compared between groups. Ethical approval to conduct the research has been obtained. All dissemination will be undertaken using the CONSORT Statement recommendations. Additionally, the results will be sent to the relevant organisations which lead CVAD focused clinical practice guidelines development. ACTRN12614001327673; ACTRN12615000977572; ACTRN12614000280606. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 | 2 | 33% |
| Australia | 2 | 33% |
| Ireland | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
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 > Master | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 10% |
| Researcher | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 18 | 20% |
| Unknown | 31 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 24 | 27% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 20% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 4% |
| Engineering | 4 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Unknown | 30 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 December 2017.
All research outputs
#7,118,510
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#11,672
of 25,582 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,114
of 354,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#201
of 395 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,582 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 354,225 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 395 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.