↓ Skip to main content

Frequency of colonization and isolated bacteria from the tip of epidural catheter implanted for postoperative analgesia

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English edition), May 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Frequency of colonization and isolated bacteria from the tip of epidural catheter implanted for postoperative analgesia
Published in
Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English edition), May 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.bjane.2014.05.015
Pubmed ID
Authors

Débora Miranda Diogo Stabille, Augusto Diogo Filho, Beatriz Lemos da Silva Mandim, Lúcio Borges de Araújo, Priscila Miranda Diogo Mesquita, Miguel Tanús Jorge

Abstract

The increased use of epidural analgesia with catheter leads to the need to demonstrate the safety of this method and know the incidence of catheter colonization, inserted postoperatively for epidural analgesia, and the bacteria responsible for this colonization. From November 2011 to April 2012, patients electively operated and maintained under epidural catheter for postoperative analgesia were evaluated. The catheter tip was collected for semiquantitative and qualitative microbiological analysis. Of 68 cultured catheters, six tips (8.8%) had positive cultures. No patient had superficial or deep infection. The mean duration of catheter use was 43.45h (18-118) (p=0.0894). The type of surgery (contaminated or uncontaminated), physical status of patients, and surgical time showed no relation with the colonization of catheters. Microorganisms isolated from the catheter tip were Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Sphingomonas paucimobilis. Postoperative epidural catheter analgesia, under these study conditions, was found to be low risk for bacterial colonization in patients at surgical wards.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 30%
Student > Master 4 17%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 9%
Researcher 2 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 3 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 17%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 9%
Environmental Science 2 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 7 30%

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 01 May 2015.
All research outputs
#16,992,760
of 19,211,930 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English edition)
#166
of 214 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,663
of 244,041 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English edition)
#5
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,211,930 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 214 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 244,041 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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.