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 |
Pro/Con debate: Are barrier precautions cost-effective in improving patient outcomes in the intensive care unit?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, January 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc10532 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nisha Thampi, Andrew M Morris |
| Abstract |
You are responsible for a large medical surgical ICU. Your hospital administration has been very focused on reducing rates of hospital-acquired infections particularly in the wake of increasing public attention. However, it is time for budget preparation and your financial officer is concerned about the escalating costs associated with patient isolation and barrier precautions/personal protective equipment. Having become aware of the high costs associated with these interventions, you start to wonder about the wisdom of spending so much in this area. Your hospital administration wants your direction on next year's expenditures. You are debating whether the expense is worthwhile and advise your hospital administration accordingly. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Indonesia | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 35 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 17% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 22% |
| Unknown | 4 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 17% |
| Psychology | 2 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 11% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 19 January 2012.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,970
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,754
of 251,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#55
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 251,410 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.