↓ Skip to main content

In-vivo evaluation of simultaneous administration of incompatible drugs in a central venous catheter with a decreased port to port distance

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, March 1999
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
11 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
In-vivo evaluation of simultaneous administration of incompatible drugs in a central venous catheter with a decreased port to port distance
Published in
Critical Care, March 1999
DOI 10.1186/cc307
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gerardo Reyes, Gurpreet S Mander, Tarek S Husayni, Rabi F Sulayman, David G Jaimovich

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Multilumen catheters are commonly used in critically ill children. Their use, however, is associated with significant morbidity. We studied the simultaneous administration of incompatible drugs using a new triple-lumen catheter with decreased length and port to port distances. METHODS: Ten domestic swine, 10-20 kg in weight, were divided into two groups of five. Total parenteral nutrition was administered through the distal port and phenytoin was administered as a bolus and as an infusion in each group. Samples were taken from two sites during the bolus and at 1, 5, and 15 min during phenytoin infusion. Histograms were generated for particle size and concentration. Samples were also examined under the microscope for particles. RESULTS: Histograms of particle size did not show any alteration of the histogram that would suggest particle size > 2 µm in diameter in the study or control samples. No particles were identified by phase microscope, light microscope, or Wright stain smear. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a triple-lumen catheter with a distance of 0.4cm between the proximal port and the medial port and 1.3 cm between the medial port and the distal port, for the in vivo simultaneous administration of incompatible solutions does not result in precipitates large enough to cause adverse clinical effects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 27%
Librarian 1 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 9%
Student > Bachelor 1 9%
Other 2 18%
Unknown 2 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 45%
Energy 1 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 9%
Social Sciences 1 9%
Design 1 9%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 06 October 2018.
All research outputs
#6,264,294
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,603
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,245
of 36,423 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 36,423 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 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