↓ Skip to main content

Management of maxillofacial trauma in emergency: An update of challenges and controversies

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Emergencies, Trauma & Shock, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#32 of 362)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
1 X user
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
151 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Management of maxillofacial trauma in emergency: An update of challenges and controversies
Published in
Journal of Emergencies, Trauma & Shock, January 2016
DOI 10.4103/0974-2700.179456
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anson Jose, Shakil Ahmed Nagori, Bhaskar Agarwal, Ongkila Bhutia, Ajoy Roychoudhury

Abstract

Trauma management has evolved significantly in the past few decades thereby reducing mortality in the golden hour. However, challenges remain, and one such area is maxillofacial injuries in a polytrauma patient. Severe injuries to the maxillofacial region can complicate the early management of a trauma patient owing to the regions proximity to the brain, cervical spine, and airway. The usual techniques of airway breathing and circulation (ABC) management are often modified or supplemented with other methods in case of maxillofacial injuries. Such modifications have their own challenges and pitfalls in an already difficult situation.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 151 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 38 25%
Student > Postgraduate 16 11%
Student > Master 13 9%
Researcher 6 4%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 3%
Other 19 13%
Unknown 54 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 69 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 1%
Engineering 2 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Other 9 6%
Unknown 57 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 17 October 2022.
All research outputs
#1,964,162
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Emergencies, Trauma & Shock
#32
of 362 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,780
of 399,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Emergencies, Trauma & Shock
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 362 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 399,662 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.