↓ Skip to main content

Antibiotic and other lock treatments for tunnelled central venous catheter-related infections in children with cancer

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 Mendeley
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
Antibiotic and other lock treatments for tunnelled central venous catheter-related infections in children with cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008975.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Reineke A Schoot, Elvira C van Dalen, Cornelia H van Ommen, Marianne D van de Wetering

Abstract

The risk of developing a tunnelled central venous catheter (CVC)-related infection ranges between 0.1 and 2.3 per 1000 catheter days for children with cancer. These infections are difficult to treat with systemic antibiotics (salvage rate 24% - 66%) due to biofilm formation in the CVC. Lock treatments can achieve 100 - 1000 times higher concentrations locally without exposure to high systemic concentrations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 115 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 18%
Student > Postgraduate 16 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 12%
Researcher 12 10%
Other 37 32%
Unknown 1 <1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 56%
Unspecified 13 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 10%
Psychology 6 5%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 1 <1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 December 2016.
All research outputs
#7,701,504
of 13,375,725 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,439
of 10,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,964
of 152,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#99
of 144 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,375,725 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,571 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 152,722 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 144 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.