You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Poor adherence to guidelines for preventing central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI): results of a worldwide survey
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13756-016-0139-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cristina Valencia, Naïma Hammami, Antonella Agodi, Alain Lepape, Eduardo Palencia Herrejon, Stijn Blot, Jean-Louis Vincent, Marie-Laurence Lambert |
| Abstract |
Central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) are a cause of increased morbidity and mortality, and are largely preventable. We documented attitudes and practices in intensive care units (ICUs) in 2015 in order to assess compliance with CLABSI prevention guidelines. Between June and October 2015, an online questionnaire was made available to medical doctors and nurses working in ICUs worldwide. We investigated practices related to central line (CL) insertion, maintenance and measurement of CLABSI-related data following the SHEA guidelines as a standard. We computed weighted estimates for high, middle and low-income countries using country population as a weight. Only countries providing at least 10 complete responses were included in these estimates. Ninety five countries provided 3407 individual responses; no low income, 14 middle income (MIC) and 27 high income (HIC) countries provided 10 or more responses. Of the total respondents, 80% (MIC, SE = 1.5) and 81% (HIC, SE = 1.0) reported availability of written clinical guidelines for CLABSI prevention in their ICU; 23% (MIC,SE = 1.7) and 62% (HIC,SE = 1.4) reported compliance to the following (combined) recommendations for CL insertion: hand hygiene, full barrier precaution, chlorhexidine >0.5%, no topic or systemic antimicrobial prophylaxis; 60% (MIC,SE = 2.0) and 73% (HIC,SE = 1.2) reported daily assessment for the need of a central line. Most considered CLABSI measurement key to quality improvement, however few were able to report their CLABSI rate. Heterogeneity between countries was high and country specific results are made available. This study has identified areas for improvement in CLABSI prevention practices linked to CL insertion and maintenance. Priorities for intervention differ between countries. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 States | 4 | 44% |
| Belgium | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 78% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 111 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 15% |
| Researcher | 16 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 11% |
| Unspecified | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 19 | 17% |
| Unknown | 31 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 27 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 20% |
| Unspecified | 10 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 14 | 12% |
| Unknown | 34 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 18 March 2018.
All research outputs
#2,244,588
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control
#251
of 1,477 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,287
of 417,654 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control
#7
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,477 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 417,654 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 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.