| Title |
Clinically‐indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd007798.pub5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Joan Webster, Sonya Osborne, Claire M Rickard, Nicole Marsh |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 139 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 44 | 32% |
| Australia | 9 | 6% |
| Spain | 7 | 5% |
| Ireland | 5 | 4% |
| United States | 5 | 4% |
| Brazil | 3 | 2% |
| Italy | 3 | 2% |
| Colombia | 3 | 2% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 17 | 12% |
| Unknown | 42 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 73 | 53% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 41 | 29% |
| Scientists | 20 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 3% |
| Unknown | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 411 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 411 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 54 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 41 | 10% |
| Researcher | 31 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 24 | 6% |
| Other | 23 | 6% |
| Other | 72 | 18% |
| Unknown | 166 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 96 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 94 | 23% |
| Psychology | 7 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 1% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | <1% |
| Other | 24 | 6% |
| Unknown | 180 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 97. 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 16 April 2024.
All research outputs
#442,307
of 25,724,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#770
of 13,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,023
of 449,212 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#12
of 195 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,724,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,135 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 449,212 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 195 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.