Objectives To quantify the change in risk of central line associated blood stream infection (CLABSI) following the introduction of a closed infusion container in intensive care units (ICUs) in two Latin American cities. Design A state-space model was used to describe the flow of admissions through the ICU. This approach correctly treats infection as a time-dependent covariate. Results A closed system reduced the risk of CLABSI. The hazard ratios for the closed versus open container were between 0.15 and 0.31 (p values<0.001), indicating a clinically significant reduction in the risk of admissions having a CLABSI. A simulation study showed that a closed system reduced the number of infections, costs and deaths. Conclusions The data reveal costs are saved and health benefits gained from fewer cases of CLABSI after adoption of a closed infusion system. Information is required on the costs of implementing the closed system widely in these settings.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
1
4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
1
4%
Other
3
12%
Unknown
11
44%
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 11 June 2012.
All research outputs
#15,245,883
of 22,668,244 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#16,919
of 22,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,845
of 125,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#41
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,668,244 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,304 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 125,635 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 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.
