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 |
Clinical experience with power-injectable PICCs in intensive care patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, February 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc11181 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mauro Pittiruti, Alberto Brutti, Davide Celentano, Massimiliano Pomponi, Daniele G Biasucci, Maria Giuseppina Annetta, Giancarlo Scoppettuolo |
| Abstract |
In the ICU, peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) may be an alternative option to standard central venous catheters, particularly in patients with coagulation disorders or at high risk for infection. Some limits of PICCs (such as low flow rates) may be overcome with the use of power-injectable catheters. |
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 | 2 | 29% |
| Spain | 1 | 14% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
| Ireland | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| India | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 88 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 17 | 18% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 15 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 14% |
| Other | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 9% |
| Other | 18 | 19% |
| Unknown | 13 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 55 | 57% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 19% |
| Engineering | 2 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 1% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 17 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 29 September 2015.
All research outputs
#6,848,228
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,844
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,547
of 253,946 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#30
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd 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 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 253,946 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.