↓ Skip to main content

Honey bee sting pain index by body location

Overview of attention for article published in PeerJ, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#16 of 9,292)
  • 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
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Honey bee sting pain index by body location
Published in
PeerJ, April 2014
DOI 10.7717/peerj.338
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael L. Smith

Abstract

The Schmidt Sting Pain Index rates the painfulness of 78 Hymenoptera species, using the honey bee as a reference point. However, the question of how sting painfulness varies depending on body location remains unanswered. This study rated the painfulness of honey bee stings over 25 body locations in one subject (the author). Pain was rated on a 1-10 scale, relative to an internal standard, the forearm. In the single subject, pain ratings were consistent over three repetitions. Sting location was a significant predictor of the pain rating in a linear model (p < 0.0001, DF = 25, 94, F = 27.4). The three least painful locations were the skull, middle toe tip, and upper arm (all scoring a 2.3). The three most painful locations were the nostril, upper lip, and penis shaft (9.0, 8.7, and 7.3, respectively). This study provides an index of how the painfulness of a honey bee sting varies depending on body location.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 461 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 3 3%
United Kingdom 3 3%
Australia 1 1%
France 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Czechia 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Luxembourg 1 1%
Unknown 86 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 28%
Student > Master 13 13%
Researcher 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Professor 7 7%
Other 22 22%
Unknown 9 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 37 38%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 9%
Physics and Astronomy 5 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Environmental Science 4 4%
Other 24 24%
Unknown 15 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 922. 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 06 September 2020.
All research outputs
#7,580
of 15,914,396 outputs
Outputs from PeerJ
#16
of 9,292 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52
of 193,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PeerJ
#1
of 125 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,914,396 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 9,292 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.8. 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 193,378 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 125 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.