↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Central venous access sites for the prevention of venous thrombosis, stenosis and infection

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2012
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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
10 tweeters
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
134 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
297 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Central venous access sites for the prevention of venous thrombosis, stenosis and infection
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004084.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiaoli Ge, Rodrigo Cavallazzi, Chunbo Li, Shu Ming Pan, Ying-Wei Wang, Fei-Long Wang

Abstract

Central venous access (CVA) is widely used. However, its thrombotic, stenotic and infectious complications can be life-threatening and involve high-cost therapy. Research revealed that the risk of catheter-related complications varied according to the site of CVA. It would be helpful to find the preferred site of insertion to minimize the risk of catheter-related complications. This review was originally published in 2007 and was updated in 2011.

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 297 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
Brazil 2 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 287 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 14%
Researcher 41 14%
Other 34 11%
Student > Bachelor 30 10%
Student > Postgraduate 28 9%
Other 82 28%
Unknown 41 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 176 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 7%
Social Sciences 11 4%
Engineering 6 2%
Psychology 6 2%
Other 26 9%
Unknown 50 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 19 August 2021.
All research outputs
#957,989
of 18,908,606 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,390
of 11,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,907
of 139,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,908,606 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,886 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 139,486 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 107 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.