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 |
Wilderness Medical Society Practice Guidelines for the Out-of-Hospital Evaluation and Treatment of Accidental Hypothermia: 2014 Update
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Wilderness & Environmental Medicine, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.wem.2014.10.010 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ken Zafren, Gordon G. Giesbrecht, Daniel F. Danzl, Hermann Brugger, Emily B. Sagalyn, Beat Walpoth, Eric A. Weiss, Paul S. Auerbach, Scott E. McIntosh, Mária Némethy, Marion McDevitt, Jennifer Dow, Robert B. Schoene, George W. Rodway, Peter H. Hackett, Brad L. Bennett, Colin K. Grissom |
| Abstract |
To provide guidance to clinicians, the Wilderness Medical Society (WMS) convened an expert panel to develop evidence-based guidelines for the out-of-hospital evaluation and treatment of victims of accidental hypothermia. The guidelines present the main diagnostic and therapeutic modalities and provide recommendations for the management of hypothermic patients. The panel graded the recommendations based on the quality of supporting evidence and the balance between benefits and risks/burdens according the criteria published by the American College of Chest Physicians. The guidelines also provide suggested general approaches to the evaluation and treatment of accidental hypothermia that incorporate specific recommendations. This is an updated version of the original Wilderness Medical Society Practice Guidelines for the Out-of-Hospital Evaluation and Treatment of Accidental Hypothermia published in Wilderness & Environmental Medicine 2014;25(4):425-445. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 | 2 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Ireland | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Scientists | 2 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 133 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 25 | 18% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 20 | 15% |
| Other | 14 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 9% |
| Researcher | 11 | 8% |
| Other | 37 | 27% |
| Unknown | 18 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 77 | 56% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Engineering | 3 | 2% |
| Design | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 8 | 6% |
| Unknown | 26 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 11 November 2020.
All research outputs
#2,976,783
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Wilderness & Environmental Medicine
#231
of 1,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,773
of 369,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Wilderness & Environmental Medicine
#5
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,066 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 369,122 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.