↓ Skip to main content

Blunt versus sharp suture needles for preventing percutaneous exposure incidents in surgical staff

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
32 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
140 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
Blunt versus sharp suture needles for preventing percutaneous exposure incidents in surgical staff
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009170.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annika Saarto, Jos H Verbeek, Marie-Claude Lavoie, Manisha Pahwa

Abstract

Surgeons and their assistants are especially at risk of exposure to blood due to glove perforations and needle stick injuries during operations. The use of blunt needles can reduce this risk because they don't penetrate skin easily but still perform sufficiently in other tissues.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 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 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 140 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 17%
Student > Bachelor 19 14%
Researcher 14 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 9%
Student > Postgraduate 10 7%
Other 29 21%
Unknown 31 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 54 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 14%
Psychology 9 6%
Sports and Recreations 3 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 17 12%
Unknown 34 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 October 2022.
All research outputs
#932,544
of 22,413,408 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,072
of 12,243 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,226
of 133,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#11
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,413,408 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,243 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 133,898 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.