↓ Skip to main content

Fixation of the short-term central venous catheter. A comparison of two techniques

Overview of attention for article published in Acta Cirurgica Brasileira, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Fixation of the short-term central venous catheter. A comparison of two techniques
Published in
Acta Cirurgica Brasileira, August 2017
DOI 10.1590/s0102-865020170080000010
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mário Lúcio Marques Leal, Ana Beatriz Alkmim Teixeira Loyola, Alexandre Ciappina Hueb, José Dias da Silva Neto, Marcos Mesquita Filho, Luiz Francisley de Paiva, Mauricio Landulfo Jorge Guerrieri, João Paulo Nunes Fernandes, Artur Costa Barros, Lydia Masako Ferreira

Abstract

To compare the fixation of the central venous catheter (CVC) using two suture techniques. A clinical, analytical, interventional, longitudinal, prospective, controlled, single-blind and randomized study in adult, intensive care unit (ICU) patients. After admission and indication of CVC use, the patients were allocated to the Wing group (n = 35, catheter fixation with clamping wings and retainers) or Shoelace group (n = 35, catheter fixation using shoelace cross-tied sutures around the device). Displacement, kinking, fixation failure, hyperemia at the insertion site, purulent secretion, loss of the device, psychomotor agitation, mental confusion, and bacterial growth at the insertion site were evaluated. Compared with the Wing group, the Shoelace group had a lower occurrence of catheter displacement (n=0 versus n =4; p = 0.04), kinking (n=0 versus n=8; p=0.001), and fixation failure (n=2 versus n=8; p=0.018). No significant difference was found in bacterial growth (n=20 versus n=14; p=0.267) between groups. The Shoelace fixation technique presented fewer adverse events than the Wing fixation technique.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 17%
Student > Master 5 14%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Other 9 25%
Unknown 6 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 22%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Engineering 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 7 19%

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 14 September 2017.
All research outputs
#10,819,259
of 13,596,736 outputs
Outputs from Acta Cirurgica Brasileira
#94
of 147 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,835
of 270,508 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Cirurgica Brasileira
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,596,736 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 147 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.7. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 270,508 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.