| Title |
Electric fences and accidental death
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12024-017-9851-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael Burke, Morris Odell, Heinrich Bouwer, Adam Murdoch |
| Abstract |
Deaths which occur in association with agricultural electric fences are very rare. In fact, electric fences have undoubtedly saved numerous human and animal lives by safely and reliably keeping livestock confined to their fields and enclosures and thus preventing motor vehicle incidents when livestock get onto roads and highways. Accidental and intentional human contact with electric fences occurs regularly and causes little more than transient discomfort, however, on exceptional occasions, contact with electric fences appears to be directly related to the death of the individual. The precise pathophysiological cause of these deaths is unclear. We present two cases of deaths associated with electric fences, discuss the possible pathophysiological mechanisms in these cases, and suggest a universal approach to the medico-legal investigation and documentation of these deaths. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 12 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 23% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 8% |
| Professor | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 23% |
| Unknown | 3 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 38% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 8% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 3 | 23% |
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 28 March 2017.
All research outputs
#21,697,638
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology
#679
of 1,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#273,943
of 312,018 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology
#25
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 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 1,014 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 312,018 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 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.