↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Antibiotic and other lock treatments for tunnelled central venous catheter‐related infections in children with cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
230 Mendeley
Title
Antibiotic and other lock treatments for tunnelled central venous catheter‐related infections in children with cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008975.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Reineke A Schoot, Elvira C van Dalen, Cornelia H van Ommen, Marianne D van de Wetering

Abstract

The risk of developing a tunnelled central venous catheter (CVC)-related infection ranges between 0.1 and 2.3 per 1000 catheter days for children with cancer. These infections are difficult to treat with systemic antibiotics (salvage rate 24% - 66%) due to biofilm formation in the CVC. Lock treatments can achieve 100 - 1000 times higher concentrations locally without exposure to high systemic concentrations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 230 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 229 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 15%
Student > Postgraduate 25 11%
Student > Bachelor 20 9%
Researcher 18 8%
Other 14 6%
Other 45 20%
Unknown 74 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 95 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 10%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 2%
Psychology 5 2%
Other 15 7%
Unknown 79 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 June 2013.
All research outputs
#16,781,609
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,370
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,017
of 209,167 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#246
of 281 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 209,167 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 281 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.