↓ Skip to main content

The effect of preheated versus room-temperature skin disinfection on bacterial colonization during pacemaker device implantation: a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial

Overview of attention for article published in Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 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
The effect of preheated versus room-temperature skin disinfection on bacterial colonization during pacemaker device implantation: a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial
Published in
Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13756-015-0084-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Camilla Wistrand, Bo Söderquist, Anders Magnusson, Ulrica Nilsson

Abstract

In clinical practice, patients who are awake often comment that cold surgical skin disinfectant is unpleasant. This is not only a problem of patients' experience; heat loss during the disinfection process is a problem that can result in hypothermia. Evidence for the efficacy of preheated disinfection is scarce. We tested whether preheated skin disinfectant was non-inferior to room-temperature skin disinfectant on reducing bacterial colonization during pacemaker implantation. This randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial included 220 patients allocated to skin disinfection with preheated (36 °C) or room-temperature (20 °C) chlorhexidine solution in 70 % ethanol. Cultures were obtained by swabbing at 4 time-points; 1) before skin disinfection (skin surface), 2) after skin disinfection (skin surface), 3) after the incision (subcutaneously in the wound), and 4) before suturing (subcutaneously in the wound). The absolute difference in growth between patients treated with preheated versus room-temperature skin disinfectant was zero (90 % CI -0.101 to 0.101; preheated: 30 of 105 [28.6 %] vs. room-temperature: 32 of 112 [28.6 %]). The pre-specified margin for statistical non-inferiority in the protocol was set at 10 % for the preheated disinfectant. There were no significant differences between groups regarding SSIs three month postoperatively, which occurred in 0.9 % (1 of 108) treated with preheated and 1.8 % (2 of 112) treated with room-temperature skin disinfectant. Preheated skin disinfection is non-inferior to room-temperature disinfection in bacterial reduction. We therefore suggest that preheated skin disinfection become routine in clean surgery. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCTO2260479).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 4%
Unknown 26 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 11%
Researcher 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Professor 2 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 6 22%
Unknown 10 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 33%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Chemistry 1 4%
Engineering 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 13 48%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 10 February 2017.
All research outputs
#587,578
of 9,046,056 outputs
Outputs from Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control
#66
of 390 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,786
of 248,317 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control
#9
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,046,056 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 390 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 248,317 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 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 57% of its contemporaries.