↓ Skip to main content
Embed badge What is this page?

Double gloving to reduce surgical cross-infection

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
178 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
222 Mendeley

What is this page?

Summary Blogs Twitter Wikipedia Dimensions citations
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.
Title
Double gloving to reduce surgical cross-infection
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2006
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003087.pub2
Pubmed ID
16855997
Authors

Judith Tanner, Hazel Parkinson

Abstract

The invasive nature of surgery, with its increased exposure to blood, means that during surgery there is a high risk of transfer of pathogens. Pathogens can be transferred through contact between surgical patients and the surgical team, resulting in post-operative or blood borne infections in patients or blood borne infections in the surgical team. Both patients and the surgical team need to be protected from this risk. This risk can be reduced by implementing protective barriers such as wearing surgical gloves. Wearing two pairs of surgical gloves, triple gloves, glove liners or cloth outer gloves, as opposed to one pair, is considered to provide an additional barrier and further reduce the risk of contamination.

View on publisher site

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 222 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 219 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 34 15%
Student > Master 28 13%
Student > Postgraduate 23 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 9%
Other 20 9%
Other 61 27%
Unknown 35 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 116 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Engineering 6 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 2%
Other 27 12%
Unknown 43 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 10 June 2020.
All research outputs
#1,219,462
of 16,706,169 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,240
of 11,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,557
of 154,837 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#17
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,706,169 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,575 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 154,837 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.

This page is provided by Altmetric.