↓ Skip to main content

Lawnmowers Versus Children: The Devastation Continues

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
Lawnmowers Versus Children: The Devastation Continues
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, October 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11999-016-5132-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mariano Garay, William L. Hennrikus, Joseph Hess, Erik B. Lehman, Douglas G. Armstrong

Abstract

Accidents with lawnmowers can cause mutilating injuries to children. Safety guidelines regarding the use of lawnmowers were promoted by professional organizations beginning in 2001. The Pennsylvania Trauma Systems Foundation maintains a database including all admissions to accredited Levels 1 to 4 trauma centers in the state. The annual rates of admission for children in our state and the severity of injuries subsequent to introduction of safety guidelines have not been reported, to our knowledge. Ride-on lawnmowers have been associated with more severe injuries in children. We asked: (1) What was the incidence of hospital admissions for children with lawnmower-related injuries during 2002 to 2013 and did the incidence vary by age? (2) What was the severity of injuries and did the severity vary by age? (3) How often did these injuries result in amputation? (4) What types of lawnmowers were involved? This was a retrospective study using a statewide trauma registry. We queried the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcome Study database for children 0 to 17 years old admitted to trauma centers in Pennsylvania between January 2002 and January 2014 with injuries resulting from lawnmower-related accidents. All accredited Levels 1 to 4 trauma centers in the state are required to submit their data to the Pennsylvania Trauma Systems Foundation which maintains the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcome Study database. Demographic information, Injury Severity Scores, International Classification of Diseases procedure codes, and injury location codes were recorded. Type of lawnmower was determined from the narratives and was identified in 60% (119/199) of patients. Traumatic and surgical amputations performed during the index hospitalization were included in the analysis. Information on later surgeries was not available. Subjects were stratified by age: 0 to 6, 7 to 12, and 13 to 17 years old. The incidence of lawnmower injuries in Pennsylvania was a median five of 100,000 children (range, 4-12/100,000) during the study period. The median age was 6 years (range, 1-17 years). The median Injury Severity Score was 4 (range, 1-75). Children 0 to 6 years old had higher median Injury Severity Scores (median, 8; range, 1-75) compared with those 13-17 years old (median, 4; range, 1-20; difference of the medians, 4; p < 0.001). A total of 53% of the patients (106/199) underwent at least one amputation. There were 83 amputations in or of the foot, 18 in the leg, 14 in the hand, and three in the arm. Ride-on lawnmowers accounted for 92% (110/119) of mowers identified by type. The incidence of serious injuries to children owing to lawnmower-related trauma did not change during the 12-year study period. If children younger than 6 years had not been near the lawnmower and those younger than 12 years had not been operating one, at least 69% of the accidents might have been prevented. We recommend annual publicity campaigns during spring to remind the public of the dangers of lawnmowers to children. Level IV, therapeutic study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 7 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 10 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Environmental Science 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 14 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 09 April 2019.
All research outputs
#6,875,065
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#1,850
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,466
of 321,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#30
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 7,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. 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 321,024 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.