↓ Skip to main content

Antibacterial honey for the prevention of peritoneal-dialysis-related infections (HONEYPOT): a randomised trial

Overview of attention for article published in Lancet Infectious Diseases, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 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
Antibacterial honey for the prevention of peritoneal-dialysis-related infections (HONEYPOT): a randomised trial
Published in
Lancet Infectious Diseases, January 2014
DOI 10.1016/s1473-3099(13)70258-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

David W Johnson, Sunil V Badve, Elaine M Pascoe, Elaine Beller, Alan Cass, Carolyn Clark, Janak de Zoysa, Nicole M Isbel, Steven McTaggart, Alicia T Morrish, E Geoffrey Playford, Anish Scaria, Paul Snelling, Liza A Vergara, Carmel M Hawley

Abstract

There is a paucity of evidence to guide the best strategy for prevention of peritoneal-dialysis-related infections. Antibacterial honey has shown promise as a novel, cheap, effective, topical prophylactic agent without inducing microbial resistance. We therefore assessed whether daily application of honey at the exit site would increase the time to peritoneal-dialysis-related infections compared with standard exit-site care plus intranasal mupirocin prophylaxis for nasal carriers of Staphylococcus aureus.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 64 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 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Slovenia 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Unknown 101 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 21 19%
Researcher 17 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 14%
Student > Master 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Other 30 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 55%
Unspecified 17 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 11 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 92. 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 April 2018.
All research outputs
#143,356
of 12,106,733 outputs
Outputs from Lancet Infectious Diseases
#208
of 3,317 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,095
of 160,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lancet Infectious Diseases
#9
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,106,733 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,317 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 160,223 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.