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 |
Early removal versus expectant management of central venous catheters in neonates with bloodstream infection
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd008436.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chakrapani Vasudevan, Sam J Oddie, William McGuire |
| Abstract |
Uncertainty exists regarding the management of newborn infants with a bloodstream infection and a central venous catheter in place. The central venous catheter may act as a nidus for infecting organisms and observational studies have suggested that early removal of the catheter is associated with a lower incidence of persistent or complicated infection. However, since central venous catheters provide secure vascular access to deliver nutrition and medications, the possible harms of early removal versus expectant management also need to be considered. To determine the effect of early removal versus expectant management of central venous catheters on morbidity and mortality in newborn infants with bloodstream infections. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. This included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1966 to October 2015), EMBASE (1980 to October 2015), CINAHL (1982 to October 2015), conference proceedings and previous reviews. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared early removal versus expectant management of central venous catheters in neonates with bloodstream infections. We used the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. We did not identify any eligible randomised controlled trials. There are no trial data to guide practice regarding early removal versus expectant management of central venous catheters in newborn infants with bloodstream infections. A simple and pragmatic randomised controlled trial is needed to resolve the uncertainty about optimal management in this common and important clinical scenario. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 | 29% |
| United States | 2 | 29% |
| Colombia | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 29% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 129 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 21 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 14% |
| Researcher | 13 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 7% |
| Professor | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 22 | 17% |
| Unknown | 44 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 45 | 34% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 2% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 5% |
| Unknown | 50 | 38% |
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
#2,329,456
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,775
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,793
of 313,623 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#121
of 240 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 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 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 313,623 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 240 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.