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 |
Effectiveness of healthcare worker screening in hospital outbreaks with gram-negative pathogens: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13756-018-0330-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nikos Ulrich, Petra Gastmeier, Ralf-Peter Vonberg |
| Abstract |
Identifying the source of an outbreak is the most crucial aspect of any outbreak investigation. In this review, we address the frequently discussed question of whether (rectal) screening of health care workers (HCWs) should be carried out when dealing with outbreaks caused by gram negative bacteria (GNB).A systematic search of the medical literature was performed, including the Worldwide Outbreak Database and PubMed. Outbreaks got included if a HCW was the source of the outbreak and the causative pathogen was anEscherichia coli,Klebsiella spp.,Enterobacter spp.,Serratia spp.,Pseudomonas aeruginosa, orAcinetobacter baumannii.This was true for 25 articles in which there were 1196 (2.1%) outbreaks due to GNB, thereof 14 HCWs who were permanently colonized by the outbreak strain. Rectal screening of HCWs was helpful in only 2 of the 1196 (0.2%) outbreaks. Instead, the hands of HCWs served as a reservoir for the outbreak strain in at least 7 articles - especially when they suffered from onychomycosis or used artificial fingernails or rings. Due to very weak evidence, we do not recommend rectal screening of HCWs in an outbreak situation with GNB. However, besides a critical review of hand hygiene habits, it might be useful to examine the hands of staff carefully. This measure is cheap, quick to perform, and seems to be quite effective. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 Kingdom | 4 | 24% |
| United States | 2 | 12% |
| Ireland | 2 | 12% |
| Ukraine | 1 | 6% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 7 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 41% |
| Members of the public | 6 | 35% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 12% |
| Scientists | 2 | 12% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 63 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 12 | 19% |
| Unknown | 21 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 17% |
| Unknown | 25 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 15 April 2018.
All research outputs
#3,048,641
of 25,656,290 outputs
Outputs from Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control
#372
of 1,470 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,847
of 349,645 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control
#14
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,656,290 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,470 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 349,645 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.