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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Central and peripheral venous lines-associated blood stream infections in the critically ill surgical patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Surgical Innovation and Research, September 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1750-1164-6-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mohamed Ali Ugas, Hyongyu Cho, Gregory M Trilling, Zainab Tahir, Humaera Farrukh Raja, Sami Ramadan, Waseem Jerjes, Peter V Giannoudis |
| Abstract |
Critically ill surgical patients are always at increased risk of actual or potentially life-threatening health complications. Central/peripheral venous lines form a key part of their care. We review the current evidence on incidence of central and peripheral venous catheter-related bloodstream infections in critically ill surgical patients, and outline pathways for prevention and intervention. An extensive systematic electronic search was carried out on the relevant databases. Articles were considered suitable for inclusion if they investigated catheter colonisation and catheter-related bloodstream infection. Two independent reviewers engaged in selecting the appropriate articles in line with our protocol retrieved 8 articles published from 1999 to 2011. Outcomes on CVC colonisation and infections were investigated in six studies; four of which were prospective cohort studies, one prospective longitudinal study and one retrospective cohort study. Outcomes relating only to PICCs were reported in one prospective randomised trial. We identified only one study that compared CVC- and PICC-related complications in surgical intensive care units. Although our search protocol may not have yielded an exhaustive list we have identified a key deficiency in the literature, namely a paucity of studies investigating the incidence of CVC- and PICC-related bloodstream infection in exclusively critically ill surgical populations. In summary, the diverse definitions for the diagnosis of central and peripheral venous catheter-related bloodstream infections along with the vastly different sample size and extremely small PICC population size has, predictably, yielded inconsistent findings. Our current understanding is still limited; the studies we have identified do point us towards some tentative understanding that the CVC/PICC performance remains inconclusive. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Russia | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 37 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 8 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 13% |
| Researcher | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 9 | 23% |
| Unknown | 3 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 60% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 3 | 8% |
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 05 September 2012.
All research outputs
#20,166,700
of 22,678,224 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Innovation and Research
#27
of 35 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,927
of 169,085 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Innovation and Research
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,678,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 35 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.2. This one scored the same or higher as 8 of them.
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 169,085 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.