↓ Skip to main content

Quantitative analysis of residual protein contamination of podiatry instruments reprocessed through local and central decontamination units

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (58th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
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.
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 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 > Bachelor 1 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 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%
Arts and Humanities 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
#6,554,982
of 12,148,956 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
#343
of 485 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,936
of 149,157 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
#11
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,148,956 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 485 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 149,157 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.