↓ Skip to main content

Mass fatality preparedness among medical examiners/coroners in the United States: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, December 2014
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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
9 news outlets
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 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
Mass fatality preparedness among medical examiners/coroners in the United States: a cross-sectional study
Published in
BMC Public Health, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-14-1275
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robyn RM Gershon, Mark G Orr, Qi Zhi, Jacqueline A Merrill, Daniel Y Chen, Halley EM Riley, Martin F Sherman

Abstract

In the United States (US), Medical Examiners and Coroners (ME/Cs) have the legal authority for the management of mass fatality incidents (MFI). Yet, preparedness and operational capabilities in this sector remain largely unknown. The purpose of this study was twofold; first, to identify appropriate measures of preparedness, and second, to assess preparedness levels and factors significantly associated with preparedness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ireland 1 1%
Unknown 73 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Researcher 8 11%
Lecturer 2 3%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 20 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 20%
Social Sciences 10 14%
Psychology 6 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Other 14 19%
Unknown 22 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 79. 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 March 2020.
All research outputs
#491,606
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#443
of 15,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,188
of 359,701 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#6
of 193 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,466 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 359,701 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 193 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 97% of its contemporaries.