↓ Skip to main content

Screening for post-traumatic stress disorder after injury in the pediatric emergency department - a systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 Mendeley
Title
Screening for post-traumatic stress disorder after injury in the pediatric emergency department - a systematic review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, March 2014
DOI 10.1186/2046-4053-3-19
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeffrey Odenbach, Amanda Newton, Rebecca Gokiert, Cathy Falconer, Craig Courchesne, Sandra Campbell, Sarah J Curtis

Abstract

Pediatric injury is highly prevalent and has significant impact both physically and emotionally. The majority of pediatric injuries are treated in emergency departments (EDs), where treatment of physical injuries is the main focus. In addition to physical trauma, children often experience significant psychological trauma, and the development of acute stress disorder (ASD) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is common. The consequences of failing to recognize and treat children with ASD and PTSD are significant and extend into adulthood. Currently, screening guidelines to identify children at risk for developing these stress disorders are not evident in the pediatric emergency setting. The goal of this systematic review is to summarize evidence on the psychometric properties, diagnostic accuracy, and clinical utility of screening tools that identify or predict PTSD secondary to physical injury in children. Specific research objectives are to: (1) identify, describe, and critically evaluate instruments available to screen for PTSD in children; (2) review and synthesize the test-performance characteristics of these tools; and (3) describe the clinical utility of these tools with focus on ED suitability.

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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 97 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 19%
Researcher 13 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 13%
Other 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 19 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 24 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 19%
Social Sciences 9 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Neuroscience 4 4%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 20 20%
Attention Score in Context

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 09 March 2014.
All research outputs
#18,369,403
of 22,751,628 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,777
of 1,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,320
of 221,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#20
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,751,628 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,988 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 221,915 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 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.