↓ Skip to main content

An Audit of First-Aid Treatment of Pediatric Burns Patients and Their Clinical Outcome

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of burn care & research, October 2009
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
An Audit of First-Aid Treatment of Pediatric Burns Patients and Their Clinical Outcome
Published in
Journal of burn care & research, October 2009
DOI 10.1097/bcr.0b013e3181bfb7d1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leila Cuttle, Olena Kravchuk, Belinda Wallis, Roy M. Kimble

Abstract

This study describes the first aid used and clinical outcomes of all patients who presented to the Royal Children's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia in 2005 with an acute burn injury. A retrospective audit was performed with the charts of 459 patients and information concerning burn injury, first-aid treatment, and clinical outcomes was collected. First aid was used on 86.1% of patients, with 8.7% receiving no first aid and unknown treatment in 5.2% of cases. A majority of patients had cold water as first aid (80.2%), however, only 12.1% applied the cold water for the recommended 20 minutes or longer. Recommended first aid (cold water for >or=20 minutes) was associated with significantly reduced reepithelialization time for children with contact injuries (P=.011). Superficial depth burns were significantly more likely to be associated with the use of recommended first aid (P=.03). Suboptimal treatment was more common for children younger than 3.5 years (P<.001) and for children with friction burns. This report is one of the few publications to relate first-aid treatment to clinical outcomes. Some positive clinical outcomes were associated with recommended first-aid use; however, wound outcomes were more strongly associated with burn depth and mechanism of injury. There is also a need for more public awareness of recommended first-aid treatment.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 17%
Student > Bachelor 7 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 8 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 56%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 9 22%
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 29 August 2014.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of burn care & research
#1,608
of 2,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,619
of 106,412 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of burn care & research
#13
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,101 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 106,412 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.