↓ Skip to main content

The need for maximal sterile barrier precaution in routine interventional coronary procedures; microbiology analysis

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Medical Research, November 2016
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 (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
The need for maximal sterile barrier precaution in routine interventional coronary procedures; microbiology analysis
Published in
European Journal of Medical Research, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40001-016-0239-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Avi Peretz, Fabio Kuzniec, Diab Ganem, Nabeeh Salman, Dahud Qarawani, Offer Amir

Abstract

Maximal sterile barrier precautions (MSBP) including head coverings and face masks are advocated for use in invasive procedures, including coronary interventions. The rationale for MSBP assumes it is an obligatory measure for infection prevention. However, in many coronary catheterization laboratories, head coverings/face masks are not used in daily practice. This study prospectively evaluated the potential hazards of not routinely using head coverings/face masks in routine coronary interventions. This is a prospective study of ambulatory patients in hospital care. A total of 110 successive elective patients undergoing cardiac catheterizations were recruited. Patients were catheterized by several interventional cardiologists who employed only routine infection control precautions without head coverings or face masks. For each patient, we took blood cultures and cultures from the tips of the coronary catheters and from the sterile saline water flush bowl. Cultures were handled and analyzed at our certified hospital microbiology laboratory. In none of the cultures was a clinically significant bacterial growth isolated. No signs of infection were reported later by any of the study patients and there were no relevant subsequent admissions. Operating in the catheterization lab without head coverings/face masks was not associated with any bacterial infection in multiple blood and equipment cultures. Accordingly, we believe that the use of head coverings/face masks should not be an obligatory requirement and may be used at the interventional cardiologist's discretion.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 20%
Student > Master 3 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Unspecified 1 7%
Professor 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 4 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 5 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 20%
Unspecified 1 7%
Unknown 6 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 23 August 2020.
All research outputs
#2,835,752
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Medical Research
#72
of 923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,997
of 318,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Medical Research
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 318,863 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them