↓ 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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
30 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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 30 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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 20%
Student > Bachelor 12 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 12%
Other 20 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 16%
Unspecified 8 11%
Psychology 6 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 9 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 21 February 2019.
All research outputs
#540,797
of 13,504,707 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,674
of 10,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,694
of 204,963 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#77
of 481 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,504,707 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 10,622 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 204,963 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 481 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.