↓ Skip to main content

Major Anthropogenic Causes for and Outcomes of Wild Animal Presentation to a Wildlife Clinic in East Tennessee, USA, 2000–2011

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 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
Major Anthropogenic Causes for and Outcomes of Wild Animal Presentation to a Wildlife Clinic in East Tennessee, USA, 2000–2011
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0093517
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ashley N. Schenk, Marcy J. Souza

Abstract

To determine the reasons for presentation and outcome of wildlife cases in East Tennessee, a retrospective analysis was performed using 14,303 records from cases presented to the wildlife clinic of the University of Tennessee Veterinary Teaching Hospital between 2000 and 2011. The cases were first categorized into amphibian/non-avian reptile, mammal, or avian and then classified into groups based on the primary admitting/presenting sign. There are a variety of reasons animals were presented to the clinic, and some were directly or indirectly anthropogenic in origin, including cat related, dog related, hit by automobile, and other human encounters leading to trauma; of the cases reviewed, 4,443 (31.1%) presented for one of these 4 reasons. Overall case fatality risk in regard to these 4 admitting/presenting signs was 0.519 for the amphibian/non-avian reptile cases, 0.675 for mammal cases, and 0.687 for avian cases. This study confirms the importance of monitoring wildlife morbidity and mortality and of focusing efforts to reduce the anthropogenic threat on native habitats and resident wildlife populations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 62 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 22%
Student > Master 13 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 16%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 11 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 32%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 18 29%
Environmental Science 4 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Physics and Astronomy 1 2%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 13 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 April 2014.
All research outputs
#18,369,403
of 22,751,628 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#154,398
of 194,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,759
of 226,157 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#4,139
of 5,427 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,751,628 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,172 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 226,157 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,427 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.