| Title |
Prophylactic antibiotics for preventing Gram positive infections associated with long‐term central venous catheters in oncology patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd003295.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marianne D van de Wetering, Job BM van Woensel, Theresa A Lawrie |
| Abstract |
This is an updated version of the review which was first published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in 2006. Long-term central venous catheters (CVCs), including tunnelled CVCs (TCVCs) and totally implanted devices or ports (TIDs), are increasingly used when treating oncology patients. Despite international guidelines on sterile insertion and appropriate CVC maintenance and use, infection remains a common complication. These infections are mainly caused by Gram positive bacteria. Antimicrobial prevention strategies aimed at these micro-organisms could potentially decrease the majority of CVC infections. The aim of this review was to evaluate the efficacy of antibiotics in the prevention of Gram positive infections in long-term CVCs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 184 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 182 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 27 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 23 | 13% |
| Researcher | 21 | 11% |
| Other | 17 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 7% |
| Other | 30 | 16% |
| Unknown | 53 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 76 | 41% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 17 | 9% |
| Unknown | 55 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 19 July 2022.
All research outputs
#2,334,033
of 25,972,223 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,689
of 13,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,098
of 320,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#86
of 236 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,972,223 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,170 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 320,201 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 236 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 63% of its contemporaries.