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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Interventions to improve professional adherence to guidelines for prevention of device‐related infections
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd006559.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gerd Flodgren, Lucieni O Conterno, Alain Mayhew, Omar Omar, Cresio Romeu Pereira, Sasha Shepperd |
| Abstract |
Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) are a major threat to patient safety, and are associated with mortality rates varying from 5% to 35%. Important risk factors associated with HAIs are the use of invasive medical devices (e.g. central lines, urinary catheters and mechanical ventilators), and poor staff adherence to infection prevention practices during insertion and care for the devices when in place. There are specific risk profiles for each device, but in general, the breakdown of aseptic technique during insertion and care for the device, as well as the duration of device use, are important factors for the development of these serious and costly infections. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 25% |
| Spain | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 669 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | <1% |
| Germany | 3 | <1% |
| United States | 3 | <1% |
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Pakistan | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 3 | <1% |
| Unknown | 648 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 115 | 17% |
| Researcher | 86 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 80 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 65 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 40 | 6% |
| Other | 124 | 19% |
| Unknown | 159 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 223 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 101 | 15% |
| Psychology | 44 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 33 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 15 | 2% |
| Other | 72 | 11% |
| Unknown | 181 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 06 September 2023.
All research outputs
#6,564,179
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,256
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,135
of 210,810 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#134
of 214 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
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 is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 210,810 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 214 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.