| Title |
Catheter type, placement and insertion techniques for preventing catheter-related infections in chronic peritoneal dialysis patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd004680.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Htay, David W Johnson, Jonathan C Craig, Francesco Paolo Schena, Giovanni FM Strippoli, Allison Tong, Yeoungjee Cho |
X Demographics
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 6 | 23% |
| Spain | 3 | 12% |
| United States | 2 | 8% |
| Belgium | 1 | 4% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 4% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 4% |
| Peru | 1 | 4% |
| Colombia | 1 | 4% |
| Curaçao | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 6 | 23% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 54% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 27% |
| Scientists | 3 | 12% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 158 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 10% |
| Other | 10 | 6% |
| Researcher | 9 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 27 | 17% |
| Unknown | 70 | 44% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 49 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 2% |
| Psychology | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 9 | 6% |
| Unknown | 76 | 48% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 05 March 2022.
All research outputs
#1,698,925
of 24,522,750 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,779
of 12,928 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,000
of 354,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#68
of 179 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,522,750 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,928 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 354,689 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 179 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.