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 |
Hearing loss associated with US military combat deployment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Noise & Health, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.4103/1463-1741.149574 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Timothy S. Wells, Amber D. Seelig, Margaret A. K. Ryan, Jason M. Jones, Tomoko I. Hooper, Isabel G. Jacobson, Edward J. Boyko |
| Abstract |
The objective of this study was to define the risk of hearing loss among US military members in relation to their deployment experiences. Data were drawn from the Millennium Cohort Study. Self-reported data and objective military service data were used to assess exposures and outcomes. Among all 48,540 participants, 7.5% self-reported new-onset hearing loss. Self-reported hearing loss showed moderate to substantial agreement (k = 0.57-0.69) with objective audiometric measures. New-onset hearing loss was associated with combat deployment (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.49-1.77), as well as male sex and older age. Among deployers, new-onset hearing loss was also associated with proximity to improvised explosive devices (AOR = 2.10, 95% CI = 1.62-2.73) and with experiencing a combat-related head injury (AOR = 6.88, 95% CI = 3.77-12.54). These findings have implications for health care and disability planning, as well as for prevention programs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 | 3 | 60% |
| Nigeria | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 79 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 17 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 18 | 22% |
| Unknown | 17 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 7% |
| Engineering | 4 | 5% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 16% |
| Unknown | 23 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. 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 24 January 2024.
All research outputs
#1,063,026
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Noise & Health
#35
of 440 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,705
of 359,528 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Noise & Health
#2
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 440 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 359,528 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.