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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Pharmacological Approaches That Slow Lymphatic Flow As a Snakebite First Aid
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002722 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dirk F. van Helden, Paul A. Thomas, Peter J. Dosen, Mohammad S. Imtiaz, Derek R. Laver, Geoffrey K. Isbister |
| Abstract |
This study examines the use of topical pharmacological agents as a snakebite first aid where slowing venom reaching the circulation prevents systemic toxicity. It is based on the fact that toxin molecules in most snake venoms are large molecules and generally first enter and traverse the lymphatic system before accessing the circulation. It follows on from a previous study where it was shown that topical application of a nitric oxide donor slowed lymph flow to a similar extent in humans and rats as well as increased the time to respiratory arrest for subcutaneous injection of an elapid venom (Pseudonaja textilis, Ptx; Eastern brown snake) into the hind feet of anaesthetized rats. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 | 6 | 32% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 11% |
| Australia | 2 | 11% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 11% |
| Canada | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 6 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 74% |
| Scientists | 3 | 16% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| South Africa | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 56 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 22% |
| Researcher | 7 | 12% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 9% |
| Professor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 21% |
| Unknown | 11 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 24% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Unknown | 12 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 January 2024.
All research outputs
#1,658,209
of 25,663,438 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
#1,051
of 9,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,299
of 236,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
#13
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,663,438 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,450 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 236,432 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.