↓ Skip to main content

Assessing the Necessity of the Standardized Infection Ratio for Reporting Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS ONE, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
10 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
Assessing the Necessity of the Standardized Infection Ratio for Reporting Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections
Published in
PLoS ONE, November 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0079554
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel M. Saman, Kevin T. Kavanagh

Abstract

This brief article presents results that support the contention that risk adjustment via the standardized infection ratio (SIR) for the reporting of central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) may be no more predictive than standard rate adjustments utilizing CLABSIs per central line days (i.e., CLABSI rates). Recent data posted on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Hospital Compare website showed that nearly 70% of 1721 reporting hospitals with at least 1000 central line days had five or fewer infections during 2011. These hospitals had 39.3% of the total central line days and a significantly lower SIR than poorer performing hospitals with six or more CLABSIs (p<0.0001). In addition, 19 hospitals are presented which had central line days between 9000 to over 22,000 that also had zero to three CLABSIs. Some of these hospitals were university referral centers and inner city facilities. There was great variation of CLABSI cases among US hospitals. Evidence is mounting that all hospitals should be able to achieve a near zero incidence of CLABSIs and that these infections may in fact be near 'never events', which begs whether risk adjustment with the SIR is needed and whether it adds more information than does rate adjustment using CLABSI rates.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 10%
Unknown 9 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 40%
Student > Bachelor 2 20%
Student > Postgraduate 1 10%
Other 1 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 10%
Other 1 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 70%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 20%
Social Sciences 1 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 November 2013.
All research outputs
#2,747,237
of 3,627,916 outputs
Outputs from PLoS ONE
#46,193
of 64,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,972
of 97,589 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS ONE
#3,064
of 3,936 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 3,627,916 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 64,066 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 97,589 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,936 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.