↓ Skip to main content

Current Reports on Autoerotic Deaths—Five Persistent Myths

Overview of attention for article published in Current Psychiatry Reports, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
15 X users
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
Current Reports on Autoerotic Deaths—Five Persistent Myths
Published in
Current Psychiatry Reports, December 2013
DOI 10.1007/s11920-013-0430-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anny Sauvageau

Abstract

Autoerotic deaths are defined as accidental deaths that occur during individual, solitary sexual activity in which some type of apparatus that was used to enhance the sexual stimulation of the deceased caused unintentional death. In the Western countries, the incidence of these deaths is of approximately 0.5 deaths per million inhabitants per year. In this paper, five myths about autoerotic death are explored. Myth #1: the manner of death in autoerotic death is usually accidental but could also be suicidal or natural (reality: by definition, all autoerotic deaths are accidental). Myth #2: autoerotic death can happen with a sexual partner (reality: by definition, autoerotic deaths are solitary activities). Myth #3: an escape mechanism must be found at the scene (reality: there is no escape mechanism to be observed at the scene in the majority of autoerotic deaths). Myth #4: all autoerotic deaths are related to asphyxia (reality: not all autoerotic deaths are related to asphyxia). Myth #5: masturbation is an important component of all autoerotic activities and therefore all autoerotic deaths (reality: evidence of masturbation at the scene is a rare finding).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 17%
Other 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 11%
Student > Master 1 6%
Other 3 17%
Unknown 5 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Arts and Humanities 1 6%
Psychology 1 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 07 July 2022.
All research outputs
#1,506,428
of 25,711,998 outputs
Outputs from Current Psychiatry Reports
#180
of 1,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,137
of 322,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Psychiatry Reports
#3
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,998 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,287 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 322,868 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.