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 |
The Forgotten Role of Alcohol: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Clinical Efficacy and Perceived Role of Chlorhexidine in Skin Antisepsis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, September 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0044277 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matthias Maiwald, Edwin S. Y. Chan |
| Abstract |
Skin antisepsis is a simple and effective measure to prevent infections. The efficacy of chlorhexidine is actively discussed in the literature on skin antisepsis. However, study outcomes due to chlorhexidine-alcohol combinations are often attributed to chlorhexidine alone. Thus, we sought to review the efficacy of chlorhexidine for skin antisepsis and the extent of a possible misinterpretation of evidence. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 40% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 3 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 248 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 1% |
| Australia | 2 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Russia | 1 | <1% |
| Singapore | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 237 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 36 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 30 | 12% |
| Researcher | 28 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 27 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 24 | 10% |
| Other | 52 | 21% |
| Unknown | 51 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 120 | 48% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 32 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 2% |
| Chemistry | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 21 | 8% |
| Unknown | 57 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 18 June 2020.
All research outputs
#3,220,961
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#42,434
of 195,673 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,884
of 169,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#735
of 4,385 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 195,673 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 169,768 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,385 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.