↓ Skip to main content

Optimal timing for intravascular administration set replacement

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
22 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 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
Optimal timing for intravascular administration set replacement
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003588.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amanda J Ullman, Marie L Cooke, Donna Gillies, Nicole Marsh, Azlina Daud, Matthew R McGrail, Elizabeth O'Riordan, Claire M Rickard

Abstract

The tubing (administration set) attached to both venous and arterial catheters may contribute to bacteraemia and other infections. The rate of infection may be increased or decreased by routine replacement of administration sets. This review was originally published in 2005 and was updated in 2012.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 2%
South Africa 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 101 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 16%
Other 16 15%
Unspecified 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 14 13%
Researcher 13 12%
Other 33 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 46%
Unspecified 21 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 15%
Social Sciences 8 7%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 10 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 11 October 2017.
All research outputs
#622,979
of 12,100,779 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,309
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,369
of 154,963 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#16
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,100,779 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 154,963 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.