↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Heparin versus normal saline for patency of arterial lines

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2014
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 (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
147 Mendeley
Title
Heparin versus normal saline for patency of arterial lines
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007364.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Suzanne Robertson-Malt, Greg N Malt, Vincent Farquhar, William Greer

Abstract

For most patients who require intensive care, the success of clinical decision making and interventions is dependent on the accuracy of different physiological variables measured or obtained from samples using an arterial catheter. Maintaining the patency of these catheters is therefore essential for obtaining accurate measures, minimizing patient discomfort and reducing expenses incurred when an occluded catheter requires replacement. Uncertainty exists amongst clinicians as to best practice surrounding the contents of the arterial catheter flush solution (heparin or saline). The use of heparin is more expensive and is accompanied by significant risks such as haemorrhage, hypersensitivity and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 145 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 16%
Student > Bachelor 15 10%
Researcher 12 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 8%
Student > Postgraduate 11 7%
Other 35 24%
Unknown 38 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 22%
Psychology 6 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 13 9%
Unknown 43 29%

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 08 November 2020.
All research outputs
#1,918,255
of 22,914,829 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,222
of 12,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,485
of 227,222 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#88
of 234 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,914,829 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 12,335 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 227,222 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 234 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 62% of its contemporaries.