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 |
Snakebite Mortality in India: A Nationally Representative Mortality Survey
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, April 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001018 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bijayeeni Mohapatra, David A. Warrell, Wilson Suraweera, Prakash Bhatia, Neeraj Dhingra, Raju M. Jotkar, Peter S. Rodriguez, Kaushik Mishra, Romulus Whitaker, Prabhat Jha |
| Abstract |
India has long been thought to have more snakebites than any other country. However, inadequate hospital-based reporting has resulted in estimates of total annual snakebite mortality ranging widely from about 1,300 to 50,000. We calculated direct estimates of snakebite mortality from a national mortality survey. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 5 | 26% |
| Canada | 3 | 16% |
| Spain | 1 | 5% |
| Philippines | 1 | 5% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 5% |
| United States | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 6 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 15 | 79% |
| Scientists | 3 | 16% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 573 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 2 | <1% |
| Denmark | 2 | <1% |
| India | 2 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 563 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 90 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 79 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 58 | 10% |
| Researcher | 54 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 48 | 8% |
| Other | 97 | 17% |
| Unknown | 147 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 114 | 20% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 104 | 18% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 56 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 24 | 4% |
| Environmental Science | 20 | 3% |
| Other | 86 | 15% |
| Unknown | 169 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 168. 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 01 January 2024.
All research outputs
#241,481
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
#111
of 9,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#758
of 120,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
#1
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,380 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 120,512 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 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 98% of its contemporaries.