↓ 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

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
393 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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 6 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 393 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%
Denmark 1 <1%
Gambia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Other 5 1%
Unknown 370 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 80 20%
Researcher 60 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 52 13%
Unspecified 50 13%
Student > Bachelor 46 12%
Other 105 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 172 44%
Unspecified 63 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 61 16%
Psychology 27 7%
Social Sciences 22 6%
Other 48 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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
#3,724,209
of 13,155,997 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,750
of 10,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,414
of 147,603 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#71
of 114 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,155,997 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,503 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 147,603 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 114 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.