| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Tunisia | 1 | 9% |
| Brazil | 1 | 9% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 9% |
| Japan | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 7 | 64% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 91% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 383 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% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 373 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 48 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 47 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 39 | 10% |
| Other | 35 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 30 | 8% |
| Other | 101 | 26% |
| Unknown | 83 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 194 | 51% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 34 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 4% |
| Psychology | 7 | 2% |
| Engineering | 7 | 2% |
| Other | 32 | 8% |
| Unknown | 95 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 23 April 2023.
All research outputs
#1,303,033
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,759
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,666
of 169,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#25
of 187 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 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 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 169,204 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 187 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.