↓ Skip to main content

A randomised, single-blind comparison of high-level disinfectants for flexible nasendoscopes

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Laryngology & Otology, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
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.
Article details
Title
A randomised, single-blind comparison of high-level disinfectants for flexible nasendoscopes
Published in
Journal of Laryngology & Otology, September 2016
DOI 10.1017/s0022215116008860
Pubmed ID
Authors

B Hitchcock, S Moynan, C Frampton, R Reuther, P Gilling, F Rowe

Abstract

To compare the microbiological efficacy, turnaround time, cost, convenience, and patient and user tolerance of Tristel Trio Wipes, PeraSafe solution and Cidex OPA solution for the high-level disinfection of flexible nasendoscopes. Flexible nasendoscopes were used in routine clinical encounters. They were then disinfected with one of the three disinfectant methods. Surveillance cultures were taken before and after each disinfection process. Data relating to each of the study parameters were recorded. Positive bacterial cultures were discovered on nasendoscopes disinfected with PeraSafe and Cidex OPA. Tristel Trio Wipes have no capital outlay cost, the lowest running cost, the greatest convenience and the fastest turnaround time. PeraSafe had a faster turnaround time than Cidex OPA, and lower running costs. Tristel Trio Wipes are equal to PeraSafe and Cidex OPA in terms of microbiological efficacy. Turnaround time and cost are dramatically reduced when using Tristel Trio Wipes compared to the other disinfectant methods.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 18%
Student > Postgraduate 3 14%
Researcher 2 9%
Other 1 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 10 45%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 5 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 14%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 9%
Sports and Recreations 1 5%
Chemistry 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 September 2016.
All research outputs
#28,603,920
of 34,363,559 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Laryngology & Otology
#2,382
of 3,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#267,275
of 334,485 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Laryngology & Otology
#12
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,363,559 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,770 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 334,485 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.