↓ Skip to main content

The international view of envenoming in Brazil: myths and realities

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins including Tropical Diseases, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
The international view of envenoming in Brazil: myths and realities
Published in
Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins including Tropical Diseases, November 2013
DOI 10.1186/1678-9199-19-29
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rosany Bochner

Abstract

Being distant from Brazil's great natural diversity, from its long tradition in the study of snakebites and from the fact that it is one of the few countries which has a national information system for monitoring incidents involving venomous animals, non-Brazilian researchers face risks when estimating the incidence of these accidents in the country. The present work offers a critical review of the main estimates undertaken since 1954. It is interesting to note contradictions between textual and graphic information within the same article, variations over time in the work of a same researcher and differences among distinct authors, and that all these issues remain unmentioned or undiscussed. Comparison among such estimates and the data available at the Brazilian Information System on Diseases of Compulsory Declaration (Sistema de Informação de Agravos de Notificação - SINAN) creates an opportunity to identify the degree of imprecision present in those articles, and draws attention to the need for the production of studies at both the regional and national levels, based on concrete data collected at national, state and municipal levels, which has been available on the internet since 2001.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 19 28%
Unspecified 11 16%
Student > Master 10 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Researcher 4 6%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 11 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 24%
Unspecified 11 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Other 14 21%
Unknown 13 19%
Attention Score in Context

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 12 November 2013.
All research outputs
#16,721,717
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins including Tropical Diseases
#310
of 539 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,846
of 225,265 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins including Tropical Diseases
#7
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 539 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 225,265 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.