↓ 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 (#34 of 15,003)
  • 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
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 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.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 432 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 3 2%
United Kingdom 3 2%
Switzerland 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Luxembourg 1 <1%
Unknown 112 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 24%
Researcher 17 14%
Student > Master 14 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Student > Bachelor 8 6%
Other 28 23%
Unknown 19 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 41 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 9%
Psychology 5 4%
Physics and Astronomy 5 4%
Chemistry 5 4%
Other 32 26%
Unknown 25 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 913. 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 27 August 2024.
All research outputs
#20,396
of 26,748,235 outputs
Outputs from PeerJ
#34
of 15,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93
of 240,017 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PeerJ
#1
of 131 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,748,235 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 15,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.5. 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 240,017 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 131 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.