↓ Skip to main content

Survival benefit of helicopter emergency medical services compared to ground emergency medical services in traumatized patients

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
13 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
113 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
189 Mendeley
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.
Title
Survival benefit of helicopter emergency medical services compared to ground emergency medical services in traumatized patients
Published in
Critical Care, June 2013
DOI 10.1186/cc12796
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hagen Andruszkow, Rolf Lefering, Michael Frink, Philipp Mommsen, Christian Zeckey, Katharina Rahe, Christian Krettek, Frank Hildebrand

Abstract

Physician-staffed helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) are a well-established component of prehospital trauma care in Germany. Reduced rescue times and increased catchment area represent presumable specific advantages of HEMS. In contrast, the availability of HEMS is connected to a high financial burden and depends on the weather, day time and controlled visual flight rules. To date, clear evidence regarding the beneficial effects of HEMS in terms of improved clinical outcome has remained elusive.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 182 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 28 15%
Student > Master 25 13%
Researcher 23 12%
Other 14 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 7%
Other 51 27%
Unknown 34 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 106 56%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 3%
Engineering 5 3%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 8 4%
Unknown 43 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. 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 13 April 2016.
All research outputs
#890,050
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#674
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,018
of 209,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#1
of 113 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 209,406 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 113 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.