| Title |
Treatment of War Wounds: A Historical Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, February 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11999-009-0738-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
M. M. Manring, Alan Hawk, Jason H. Calhoun, Romney C. Andersen |
| Abstract |
The treatment of war wounds is an ancient art, constantly refined to reflect improvements in weapons technology, transportation, antiseptic practices, and surgical techniques. Throughout most of the history of warfare, more soldiers died from disease than combat wounds, and misconceptions regarding the best timing and mode of treatment for injuries often resulted in more harm than good. Since the 19th century, mortality from war wounds steadily decreased as surgeons on all sides of conflicts developed systems for rapidly moving the wounded from the battlefield to frontline hospitals where surgical care is delivered. We review the most important trends in US and Western military trauma management over two centuries, including the shift from primary to delayed closure in wound management, refinement of amputation techniques, advances in evacuation philosophy and technology, the development of antiseptic practices, and the use of antibiotics. We also discuss how the lessons of history are reflected in contemporary US practices in Iraq and Afghanistan. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 109 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 | 23 | 21% |
| United Kingdom | 21 | 19% |
| Canada | 6 | 6% |
| Australia | 3 | 3% |
| New Zealand | 2 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Peru | 1 | <1% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Unknown | 45 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 79 | 72% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 12 | 11% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 10 | 9% |
| Scientists | 8 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 302 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Ukraine | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Andorra | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 294 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 49 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 38 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 38 | 13% |
| Researcher | 35 | 12% |
| Other | 25 | 8% |
| Other | 62 | 21% |
| Unknown | 55 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 120 | 40% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 24 | 8% |
| Engineering | 22 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 11 | 4% |
| Other | 44 | 15% |
| Unknown | 65 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 174. 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
#237,782
of 25,791,495 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#24
of 7,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#719
of 191,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#1
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,791,495 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 7,324 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 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 191,279 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 41 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 97% of its contemporaries.