| Title |
Rapid versus standard antimicrobial susceptibility testing to guide treatment of bloodstream infection
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2021
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd013235.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vanesa Anton-Vazquez, Paul Hine, Sanjeev Krishna, Marty Chaplin, Timothy Planche |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 | 3 | 25% |
| India | 1 | 8% |
| Germany | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 7 | 58% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 92% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 101 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 9% |
| Other | 7 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 6 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 15% |
| Unknown | 49 | 49% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 6 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 11% |
| Unknown | 54 | 53% |
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
#2,324,112
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,832
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,387
of 455,558 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#71
of 152 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 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 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 455,558 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 152 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 53% of its contemporaries.