↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) related complications in surgical patients

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2013
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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
19 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
265 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) related complications in surgical patients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010268.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy, Rahul Koti, Peter Wilson, Brian R Davidson

Abstract

Risk of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection after surgery is generally low, but affects up to 33% of patients after certain types of surgery. Postoperative MRSA infection can occur as surgical site infections (SSIs), chest infections, or bloodstream infections (bacteraemia). The incidence of MRSA SSIs varies from 1% to 33% depending upon the type of surgery performed and the carrier status of the individuals concerned. The optimal prophylactic antibiotic regimen for the prevention of MRSA after surgery is not known.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 265 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Unknown 258 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 46 17%
Student > Bachelor 29 11%
Researcher 27 10%
Student > Postgraduate 26 10%
Other 20 8%
Other 63 24%
Unknown 54 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 119 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 3%
Psychology 5 2%
Other 32 12%
Unknown 65 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 19 June 2020.
All research outputs
#1,399,067
of 21,454,959 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,291
of 12,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,601
of 176,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#25
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,454,959 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,060 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 176,660 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.