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 |
A 4-arm randomized controlled pilot trial of innovative solutions for jugular central venous access device securement in 221 cardiac surgical patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Critical Care, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jcrc.2016.06.006 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
C.M. Rickard, M. Edwards, A.J. Spooner, G. Mihala, N. Marsh, J. Best, T. Wendt, I. Rapchuk, S. Gabriel, B. Thomson, A. Corley, J.F. Fraser |
| Abstract |
To improve jugular central venous access device (CVAD) securement, prevent CVAD failure (composite: dislodgement, occlusion, breakage, local or bloodstream infection), and assess subsequent trial feasibility. Study design was a 4-arm, parallel, randomized, controlled, nonblinded, pilot trial. Patients received CVAD securement with (i) suture+bordered polyurethane (suture + BPU; control), (ii) suture+absorbent dressing (suture + AD), (iii) sutureless securement device+simple polyurethane (SSD+SPU), or (iv) tissue adhesive+simple polyurethane (TA+SPU). Midtrial, due to safety, the TA+SPU intervention was replaced with a suture + TA+SPU group. A total of 221 patients were randomized with 2 postrandomization exclusions. Central venous access device failure was as follows: suture + BPU controls, 2 (4%) of 55 (0.52/1000 hours); suture + AD, 1 (2%) of 56 (0.26/1000 hours, P=.560); SSD+SPU, 4 (7%) of 55 (1.04/1000 hours, P=.417); TA+SPU, 4 (17%) of 23 (2.53/1000 hours, P=.049); and suture + TA+SPU, 0 (0%) of 30 (P=.263; intention-to-treat, log-rank tests). Central venous access device failure was predicted (P<.05) by baseline poor/fair skin integrity (hazard ratio, 9.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-79.9) or impaired mental state at CVAD removal (hazard ratio, 14.2; 95% confidence interval, 3.0-68.4). Jugular CVAD securement is challenging in postcardiac surgical patients who are coagulopathic and mobilized early. TA+SPU was ineffective for CVAD securement and is not recommended. Suture + TA+SPU appeared promising, with zero CVAD failure observed. Future trials should resolve uncertainty about the comparative effect of suture + TA+SPU, suture + AD, and SSD+SPU vs suture + BPU. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 1 | 33% |
| Australia | 1 | 33% |
| Ireland | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 80 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 19% |
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 9% |
| Other | 12 | 15% |
| Unknown | 22 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 26 | 33% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 21% |
| Engineering | 4 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 22 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 December 2016.
All research outputs
#14,772,367
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Critical Care
#1,408
of 2,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,045
of 369,267 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Critical Care
#36
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,468 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 369,267 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.