| Title |
A Perspective on the Evidence Regarding Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Surveillance
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Patient Safety, September 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1097/pts.0b013e3182627b89 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kevin Kavanagh, Said Abusalem, Daniel M. Saman |
| Abstract |
Two prominent studies have been used by policy makers to prevent the enactment of standards of care regarding active surveillance of patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in hospital settings. In this brief review and perspective of those studies, we contend that both studies have serious limitations (i.e., the intervention group was not given optimal intervention) that may not have been scrutinized by many policy makers, health officials, and other researchers. These studies seem to have had a disproportionate impact on health-care policy despite their limitations. Furthermore, health-care policy and treatment standards need to reflect the preponderance of evidence with appropriate weight given to research studies based on their strengths and limitations. Only then can treatment standards that are effective against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus be adopted or refuted. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 50% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 88% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 21 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 43% |
| Psychology | 2 | 10% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 13 November 2017.
All research outputs
#5,698,893
of 23,653,133 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Patient Safety
#301
of 1,185 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,956
of 171,647 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Patient Safety
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,653,133 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,185 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 171,647 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.