| Title |
The Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC): Results From a Multispecialty Panel Using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Internal Medicine, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.7326/m15-0744 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vineet Chopra, Scott A. Flanders, Sanjay Saint, Scott C. Woller, Naomi P. O'Grady, Nasia Safdar, Scott O. Trerotola, Rajiv Saran, Nancy Moureau, Stephen Wiseman, Mauro Pittiruti, Elie A. Akl, Agnes Y. Lee, Anthony Courey, Lakshmi Swaminathan, Jack LeDonne, Carol Becker, Sarah L. Krein, Steven J. Bernstein |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 100 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 | 27 | 27% |
| Spain | 5 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 3% |
| Australia | 3 | 3% |
| Brazil | 2 | 2% |
| Japan | 2 | 2% |
| New Zealand | 2 | 2% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 2 | 2% |
| Colombia | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Unknown | 46 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 59 | 59% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 29 | 29% |
| Scientists | 9 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 428 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 422 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 66 | 15% |
| Researcher | 48 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 43 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 42 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 40 | 9% |
| Other | 104 | 24% |
| Unknown | 85 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 197 | 46% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 95 | 22% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 1% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 1% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 1% |
| Other | 24 | 6% |
| Unknown | 96 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 941. 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 10 April 2024.
All research outputs
#18,690
of 26,177,525 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Internal Medicine
#129
of 13,673 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153
of 281,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Internal Medicine
#2
of 131 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,177,525 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,673 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 63.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 281,770 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 131 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.