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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Questionable validity of the catheter-associated urinary tract infection metric used for value-based purchasing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
American Journal of Infection Control, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.ajic.2015.05.024 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lindsay E. Calderon, Kevin T. Kavanagh, Mara K. Rice |
| Abstract |
Catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) occur in 290,000 US hospital patients annually, with an estimated cost of $290 million. Two different measurement systems are being used to track the US health care system's performance in lowering the rate of CAUTIs. Since 2010, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) metric has shown a 28.2% decrease in CAUTI, whereas the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention metric has shown a 3%-6% increase in CAUTI since 2009. Differences in data acquisition and the definition of the denominator may explain this discrepancy. The AHRQ metric analyzes chart-audited data and reflects both catheter use and care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention metric analyzes self-reported data and primarily reflects catheter care. Because analysis of the AHRQ metric showed a progressive change in performance over time and the scientific literature supports the importance of catheter use in the prevention of CAUTI, it is suggested that risk-adjusted catheter-use data be incorporated into metrics that are used for determining facility performance and for value-based purchasing initiatives. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 83% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 45 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 26% |
| Researcher | 6 | 13% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 20% |
| Unknown | 7 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 22% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 7% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 9 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 81. 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 April 2019.
All research outputs
#526,299
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Infection Control
#183
of 4,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,722
of 277,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Infection Control
#5
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,281 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 277,324 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.