↓ Skip to main content

BMJ

Death, injury and disability from kinetic impact projectiles in crowd-control settings: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#3 of 25,941)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
Title
Death, injury and disability from kinetic impact projectiles in crowd-control settings: a systematic review
Published in
BMJ Open, December 2017
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018154
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rohini J Haar, Vincent Iacopino, Nikhil Ranadive, Madhavi Dandu, Sheri D Weiser

Abstract

We conducted a systematic review of the available literature on deaths, injuries and permanent disability from rubber and plastic bullets, as well as from bean bag rounds, shot pellets and other projectiles used in arrests, protests and other contexts from 1 January 1990 until 1 June 2017. PubMed, Scopus, JSTOR and grey literature. We report on descriptive statistics as well as data on injury severity, permanent disability and death. We analysed potential risk factors for injury severity, including the site of impact, firing distance and access to medical care. Of 3228 identified articles, 26 articles met inclusion criteria. These articles included injury data on 1984 people, 53 of whom died as a result of their injuries. 300 people suffered permanent disability. Deaths and permanent disability often resulted from strikes to the head and neck (49.1% of deaths and 82.6% of permanent disabilities). Of the 2135 injuries in those who survived their injuries, 71% were severe, injuries to the skin and to the extremities were most frequent. Anatomical site of impact, firing distance and timely access to medical care were correlated with injury severity and risk of disability. Kinetic impact projectiles (KIPs), often called rubber or plastic bullets, are used commonly in crowd-control settings. We find that these projectiles have caused significant morbidity and mortality during the past 27 years, much of it from penetrative injuries and head, neck and torso trauma. Given their inherent inaccuracy, potential for misuse and associated health consequences of severe injury, disability and death, KIPs do not appear to be appropriate weapons for use in crowd-control settings. There is an urgent need to establish international guidelines on the use of crowd-control weapons to prevent unnecessary injuries and deaths.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,595 X users 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 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 119 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 18%
Student > Master 16 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Other 25 21%
Unknown 30 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 22%
Social Sciences 17 14%
Engineering 7 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 3%
Other 28 24%
Unknown 31 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2793. 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 03 April 2024.
All research outputs
#2,553
of 25,802,847 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#3
of 25,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29
of 448,548 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#2
of 548 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,802,847 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 25,941 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 448,548 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 548 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 99% of its contemporaries.