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 |
Chlorhexidine is not an essential component in alcohol-based surgical hand preparation: a comparative study of two handrubs based on a modified EN 12791 test protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13756-017-0258-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas-Jörg Hennig, Sebastian Werner, Kathrin Naujox, Andreas Arndt |
| Abstract |
Surgical hand preparation is an essential part of modern surgery. Both alcohol-based and antiseptic detergent-based hand preparation are recommended practices, with a trend towards use of alcohol based handrubs. However, discussion has arisen whether chlorhexidine is a required ingredient in highly efficacious alcohol-based formulations, in view of providing sustained antimicrobial efficacy. One alcohol-only formulation (product A), containing ethanol and n-propanol, and one formulation containing a chlorhexidine-ethanol combination (product B) were directly compared with each other using a modified test protocol based on European standard EN 12791 (2016) with 25 volunteers. The alcohol-only formulation (product A) was applied for only 90 s, the chlorhexidine-alcohol formulation (product B) for 180 s. Microbial log reduction factors were determined and statistically compared immediately after application and at 6 h under surgical gloves. The alcohol-only formulation (product A) achieved mean log reduction factors of 1.96 ± 1.06 immediately after application and 1.67 ± 0.71 after 6 h. The chlorhexidine-alcohol combination (product B) achieved mean log reduction factors of 1.42 ± 0.79 and 1.24 ± 0.90 immediately and after 6 h, respectively. The values for product A were significantly greater than those for product B at both measured time points (p ≤ 0.025 immediately after application and p ≤ 0.01 after 6 h). An optimized alcohol-only formulation tested according to a modified EN 12791 protocol in 25 healthy volunteers outperformed a chlorhexidine-alcohol formulation both immediately after application and at 6 h under surgical gloves, despite a much shorter application time. Thus, optimized alcohol-only formulations do not require chlorhexidine to achieve potent immediate and sustained efficacy. In conclusion, chlorhexidine is not an essential component for alcohol-based surgical hand preparation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 | 2 | 29% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 14% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 43% |
| Scientists | 2 | 29% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 56 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 16% |
| Lecturer | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 16% |
| Unknown | 17 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 13% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 5% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 17 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 05 October 2017.
All research outputs
#2,408,388
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control
#292
of 1,347 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,128
of 319,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control
#4
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,347 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 319,258 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 85% 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 86% of its contemporaries.