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 |
Antibiotic and other lock treatments for tunnelled central venous catheter‐related infections in children with cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd008975.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Reineke A Schoot, Elvira C van Dalen, Cornelia H van Ommen, Marianne D van de Wetering |
| Abstract |
The risk of developing a tunnelled central venous catheter (CVC)-related infection ranges between 0.1 and 2.3 per 1000 catheter days for children with cancer. These infections are difficult to treat with systemic antibiotics (salvage rate 24% - 66%) due to biofilm formation in the CVC. Lock treatments can achieve 100 - 1000 times higher concentrations locally without exposure to high systemic concentrations. |
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 | 1 | 50% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 236 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 235 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 34 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 25 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 8% |
| Researcher | 18 | 8% |
| Other | 14 | 6% |
| Other | 51 | 22% |
| Unknown | 74 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 95 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 27 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 2% |
| Psychology | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 18 | 8% |
| Unknown | 79 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 June 2013.
All research outputs
#16,978,129
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#11,463
of 13,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,863
of 209,818 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#254
of 296 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,136 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 209,818 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 296 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.