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

Can Inpatient Hospital Experiences Predict Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections?

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS ONE, April 2013
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
23 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley

What is this page?

Summary Twitter Facebook 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
Can Inpatient Hospital Experiences Predict Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections?
Published in
PLoS ONE, April 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0061097
Pubmed ID
23577195
Authors

Daniel M. Saman, Kevin T. Kavanagh, Brian Johnson, M. Nawal Lutfiyya

Abstract

Factors that increase the risk of central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) are not fully understood. Recently, Hospital Compare began compiling data from hospital-required reporting to the CDC's National Healthcare Safety Network on CLABSIs in intensive care units (ICUs), at over 4,000 Medicare-certified hospitals in the United States, and made this data accessible on a central website. Also available on the same website are results from the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey of patients' hospital experiences. Utilizing both databases, our objective was to determine whether patients' hospital experiences were significantly associated with increased risk for reported ICU CLABSI.

View on publisher site

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 7%
Unknown 28 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Master 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Other 11 37%
Unknown 1 3%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 20%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Other 3 10%

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 24 April 2013.
All research outputs
#1,056,646
of 14,098,131 outputs
Outputs from PLoS ONE
#16,940
of 147,580 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,208
of 149,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS ONE
#488
of 4,517 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,098,131 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 147,580 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 149,424 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,517 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.

This page is provided by Altmetric.