The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
Blunt versus sharp suture needles for preventing percutaneous exposure incidents in surgical staff
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd009170.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Annika Saarto, Jos H Verbeek, Marie‐Claude Lavoie, Manisha Pahwa |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 7 | 27% |
| Finland | 4 | 15% |
| Netherlands | 3 | 12% |
| Brazil | 2 | 8% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Antarctica | 1 | 4% |
| Ireland | 1 | 4% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 4% |
| Mexico | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 3 | 12% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 18 | 69% |
| Scientists | 5 | 19% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 2 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 161 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 27 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 14% |
| Researcher | 14 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 34 | 21% |
| Unknown | 41 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 60 | 37% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 13% |
| Psychology | 10 | 6% |
| Sports and Recreations | 3 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 18 | 11% |
| Unknown | 46 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 06 October 2022.
All research outputs
#1,300,431
of 26,411,386 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,537
of 13,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,551
of 157,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#22
of 158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,411,386 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,252 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 157,380 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 158 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.