↓ Skip to main content

Gauze and tape and transparent polyurethane dressings for central venous catheters

Overview of attention for article published in this source, November 2011
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 (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Gauze and tape and transparent polyurethane dressings for central venous catheters
Published by
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, November 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003827.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Webster, Joan, Gillies, Donna, O'Riordan, Elizabeth, Sherriff, Karen L, Rickard, Claire M

Abstract

Central venous catheters (CVCs) facilitate venous access, allowing the intravenous administration of complex drug treatments, blood products and nutritional support, without the trauma associated with repeated venepuncture. However, CVCs are associated with a risk of infection. Some studies have indicated that the type of dressing used with them may affect the risk of infection. Gauze and tape, transparent polyurethane film dressings such as Tegaderm® and Opsite®, and highly vapour-permeable transparent polyurethane film dressings such as Opsite IV3000®, are the most common types of dressing used to secure CVCs. Currently, it is not clear which type of dressing is the most appropriate.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Argentina 1 2%
Japan 1 2%
Unknown 59 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 18%
Other 10 15%
Student > Master 10 15%
Student > Postgraduate 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 7 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 20%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Psychology 3 5%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 9 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 27 November 2015.
All research outputs
#760,608
of 6,613,942 outputs
Outputs from this source
#2,904
of 8,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,535
of 237,068 outputs
Outputs of similar age from this source
#207
of 539 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,613,942 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 8,135 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 237,068 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 539 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.