↓ Skip to main content

An in vitro comparison of standard cleaning to a continuous passive disinfection cap for the decontamination of needle-free connectors

Overview of attention for article published in Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control, April 2018
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)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
An in vitro comparison of standard cleaning to a continuous passive disinfection cap for the decontamination of needle-free connectors
Published in
Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13756-018-0342-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna L. Casey, Tarja J. Karpanen, Peter Nightingale, Tom S. J. Elliott

Abstract

The optimal decontamination method for needle-free connectors is still unresolved. The objective of this study was to determine if a continuous passive disinfection cap is as effective as standard cleaning for the microbial decontamination of injection ports of two types of needle-free connectors. The injection ports of needle-free connectors were inoculated with Staphylococcus aureus and allowed to dry. Disinfection caps containing 70% (v/v) isopropyl alcohol (IPA) were attached to the connectors for one, three or 7 days and were compared with needle-free connectors cleaned with 2% (w/v) chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) in 70% (v/v) IPA. The number of S. aureus remaining on the injection ports was evaluated. Median log10 reductions and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated and data analyzed using the Mann-Whitney test. The application of the disinfection cap resulted in a significantly higher reduction in S. aureus than the 2% (w/v) CHG in 70% (v/v) IPA wipe, achieving a > 5 Log10 reduction in CFU at each time point. The disinfection caps resulted in a significantly higher reduction in S.aureus on the injection ports when compared to the use of a 2% (w/v) CHG in 70% (v/v) IPA wipe. This offers an explanation for the lower rates of central-line associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) associated with the use of disinfection caps reported in clinical studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 19%
Other 4 15%
Student > Postgraduate 4 15%
Researcher 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 8 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 26%
Neuroscience 2 7%
Unspecified 1 4%
Psychology 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 03 November 2022.
All research outputs
#5,017,756
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control
#562
of 1,347 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,614
of 333,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control
#25
of 40 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 79th 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 333,019 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 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.