↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Prophylactic antibiotics for preventing Gram positive infections associated with long-term central venous catheters in oncology patients

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 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 (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
2 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
171 Mendeley
Title
Prophylactic antibiotics for preventing Gram positive infections associated with long-term central venous catheters in oncology patients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003295.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marianne D van de Wetering, Job BM van Woensel, Theresa A Lawrie

Abstract

This is an updated version of the review which was first published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in 2006. Long-term central venous catheters (CVCs), including tunnelled CVCs (TCVCs) and totally implanted devices or ports (TIDs), are increasingly used when treating oncology patients. Despite international guidelines on sterile insertion and appropriate CVC maintenance and use, infection remains a common complication. These infections are mainly caused by Gram positive bacteria. Antimicrobial prevention strategies aimed at these micro-organisms could potentially decrease the majority of CVC infections. The aim of this review was to evaluate the efficacy of antibiotics in the prevention of Gram positive infections in long-term CVCs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 171 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 169 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 26 15%
Student > Master 22 13%
Researcher 21 12%
Other 17 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 8%
Other 29 17%
Unknown 43 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 75 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Other 17 10%
Unknown 45 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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
#1,805,807
of 21,604,458 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,100
of 12,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,613
of 305,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#35
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,604,458 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,083 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 305,052 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 111 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.