↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Early removal versus expectant management of central venous catheters in neonates with bloodstream infection

Overview of attention for article published in this source, August 2011
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 (85th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
Early removal versus expectant management of central venous catheters in neonates with bloodstream infection
Published by
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, August 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008436.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vasudevan, Chakrapani, McGuire, William

Abstract

Uncertainty exists regarding the management of central venous catheters (CVCs) in neonates with bloodstream infections. Early CVC removal may reduce the risk of persistent or complicated infection and its associated morbidity and mortality. However, since CVCs provide secure vascular access to deliver nutrition and medications, the possible harms of early removal versus expectant management need to be considered.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 4%
United States 1 2%
Switzerland 1 2%
Unknown 42 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 22%
Other 8 17%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Librarian 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 12 26%
Unknown 6 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 48%
Social Sciences 5 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 9 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 27 November 2015.
All research outputs
#1,011,199
of 6,613,942 outputs
Outputs from this source
#3,578
of 8,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,608
of 78,470 outputs
Outputs of similar age from this source
#40
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,613,942 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,135 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 78,470 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 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 51% of its contemporaries.