| Title |
Optimal timing for intravascular administration set replacement
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd003588.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Amanda J Ullman, Marie L Cooke, Donna Gillies, Nicole Marsh, Azlina Daud, Matthew R McGrail, Elizabeth O'Riordan, Claire M Rickard |
| Abstract |
The tubing (administration set) attached to both venous and arterial catheters may contribute to bacteraemia and other infections. The rate of infection may be increased or decreased by routine replacement of administration sets. This review was originally published in 2005 and was updated in 2012. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 3 | 14% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 10% |
| Colombia | 1 | 5% |
| El Salvador | 1 | 5% |
| Ireland | 1 | 5% |
| Australia | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 12 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 57% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 33% |
| Scientists | 2 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 208 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 202 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 28 | 13% |
| Other | 20 | 10% |
| Researcher | 20 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 6% |
| Other | 44 | 21% |
| Unknown | 63 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 74 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 28 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 5% |
| Engineering | 4 | 2% |
| Psychology | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 18 | 9% |
| Unknown | 69 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 July 2022.
All research outputs
#1,385,484
of 24,089,711 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,111
of 12,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,476
of 202,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#69
of 226 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,089,711 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,838 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 202,135 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 226 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 69% of its contemporaries.