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 |
Assessment of central venous catheter colonization using surveillance culture of withdrawn connectors and insertion site skin
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-016-1201-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
María Jesús Pérez-Granda, María Guembe, Raquel Cruces, José María Barrio, Emilio Bouza |
| Abstract |
Culture of catheter hubs and skin surrounding the catheter entry site has a negative predictive value for catheter tip colonization. However, manipulation of the hub for culture requires the hubs to be swabbed, introducing potential dislodging of biofilm and subsequent migration of microorganisms. Hubs are usually closed with needleless connectors (NCs), which are replaced regularly. Our objective was to evaluate whether culture of flushed withdrawn NCs is an alternative to hub culture when investigating central venous catheter colonization. The study population comprised 49 intensive care unit patients whose central venous catheters had been in place for at least 7 days. Cultures of NCs and skin were obtained weekly. We included 82 catheters with more than 7 days' indwelling time. The catheter tip colonization rate was 18.3 % (15/82). Analysis of skin and NC cultures revealed a 92.5 % negative predictive value for catheter colonization. Three episodes of catheter-related bloodstream infection (C-RBSI) occurred in patients with colonized catheters. Surveillance of NC and skin cultures could help to identify patients at risk for C-RBSI. |
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 | 1 | 14% |
| Ireland | 1 | 14% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 43% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 29% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ecuador | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 50 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 16% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 18% |
| Unknown | 13 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 24% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 18 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 24 March 2016.
All research outputs
#7,778,071
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,172
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,762
of 405,924 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#63
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
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 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 405,924 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.