↓ Skip to main content

Swabbing of waiting room magazines reveals only low levels of bacterial contamination

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, January 1970
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#24 of 1,876)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
13 news outlets
twitter
14 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
7 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
Swabbing of waiting room magazines reveals only low levels of bacterial contamination
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, January 1970
Pubmed ID
Authors

Colin Charnock

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that toys in waiting rooms of general practice surgeries can be contaminated with potentially pathogenic bacteria. The question was raised as to whether magazines might also be sources of contamination. Swabbing of the front page of 15 magazines from 11 general practice surgeries, followed by analysis for total and specific bacteria, revealed low levels of contamination. Among targeted groups of pathogens only two colonies of Staphylococcus aureus were detected. Magazines do not seem to be potentially important vectors of bacterial transfer in the setting examined.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 43%
Student > Bachelor 2 29%
Professor 1 14%
Student > Master 1 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 14%
Materials Science 1 14%
Engineering 1 14%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 98. 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 November 2016.
All research outputs
#80,555
of 8,016,592 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#24
of 1,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#706
of 94,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#2
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,016,592 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,876 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 94,671 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 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.