↓ Skip to main content

Interventions to improve professional adherence to guidelines for prevention of device-related infections

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
81 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
472 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
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, 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 472 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 6 1%
Germany 3 <1%
United States 3 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
India 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Gambia 1 <1%
Other 5 1%
Unknown 448 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 90 19%
Researcher 73 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 61 13%
Student > Bachelor 55 12%
Student > Postgraduate 33 7%
Other 100 21%
Unknown 60 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 187 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 79 17%
Psychology 34 7%
Social Sciences 30 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 3%
Other 54 11%
Unknown 75 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 09 December 2015.
All research outputs
#8,030,308
of 15,213,494 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,417
of 11,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,599
of 154,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#79
of 113 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,213,494 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.8. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 154,994 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 113 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.