The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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 |
Quantitative analysis of residual protein contamination of podiatry instruments reprocessed through local and central decontamination units
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, January 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1757-1146-4-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gordon WG Smith, Frank Goldie, Steven Long, David F Lappin, Gordon Ramage, Andrew J Smith |
| Abstract |
The cleaning stage of the instrument decontamination process has come under increased scrutiny due to the increasing complexity of surgical instruments and the adverse affects of residual protein contamination on surgical instruments. Instruments used in the podiatry field have a complex surface topography and are exposed to a wide range of biological contamination. Currently, podiatry instruments are reprocessed locally within surgeries while national strategies are favouring a move toward reprocessing in central facilities. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of local and central reprocessing on podiatry instruments by measuring residual protein contamination of instruments reprocessed by both methods. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 67% |
| Poland | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 14 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 29% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 21% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 2 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 21% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 29% |
| Unknown | 2 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 04 September 2013.
All research outputs
#15,565,847
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
#6
of 6 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,832
of 194,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.8. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 194,661 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them