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 |
Recomendaciones sobre la prevención de aspiraciones de cuerpos extraños
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Anales de Pediatría, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.anpedi.2016.04.013 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Javier Lluna, Mikel Olabarri, Anna Domènech, Bárbara Rubio, Francisca Yagüe, María T. Benítez, María J. Esparza, Santiago Mintegi, en representación de Seguridad y Prevención de Lesiones No Intencionadas de Seguridad y Prevención de Lesiones No Intencionadas de Seguridad y Prevención de Lesiones No Intencionadas de Seguridad y Prevención de Lesiones No Intencionadas en la Infancia de la Asociación Española de del Comité en en en Pediatría |
| Abstract |
The aspiration of a foreign body remains a common paediatric problem, with serious consequences that can produce both acute and chronic disease. Aspiration usually causes a medical emergency that requires a prompt diagnosis and an urgent therapeutic approach as it may result in the death of the child or severe brain injury. It typically involves organic foreign bodies (mainly food or nuts) aspirated by children under 5 years old, and usually at home. In this statement, the Committee on Safety and Prevention of Non-Intentional Injury in Childhood of the Spanish Paediatrics Association provides a series of recommendations, both educational (while eating and playing), as well as legal, to prevent such episodes. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 3 | 60% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 40% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 26% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 3% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 16 | 46% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 34% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 11% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Engineering | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 17 | 49% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 30 January 2018.
All research outputs
#15,169,543
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Anales de Pediatría
#318
of 926 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,704
of 348,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anales de Pediatría
#9
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 926 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 348,781 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 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 71% of its contemporaries.