↓ Skip to main content

Hearing loss associated with US military combat deployment

Overview of attention for article published in Noise & Health, January 2015
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 (#13 of 327)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
Hearing loss associated with US military combat deployment
Published in
Noise & Health, January 2015
DOI 10.4103/1463-1741.149574
Pubmed ID
Authors

TimothyS Wells, AmberD Seelig, MargaretA. K. Ryan, JasonM Jones, TomokoI Hooper, IsabelG Jacobson, EdwardJ Boyko

Abstract

The objective of this study was to define the risk of hearing loss among US military members in relation to their deployment experiences. Data were drawn from the Millennium Cohort Study. Self-reported data and objective military service data were used to assess exposures and outcomes. Among all 48,540 participants, 7.5% self-reported new-onset hearing loss. Self-reported hearing loss showed moderate to substantial agreement (k = 0.57-0.69) with objective audiometric measures. New-onset hearing loss was associated with combat deployment (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.49-1.77), as well as male sex and older age. Among deployers, new-onset hearing loss was also associated with proximity to improvised explosive devices (AOR = 2.10, 95% CI = 1.62-2.73) and with experiencing a combat-related head injury (AOR = 6.88, 95% CI = 3.77-12.54). These findings have implications for health care and disability planning, as well as for prevention programs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 5%
Unknown 39 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 20%
Student > Master 6 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Unspecified 3 7%
Lecturer 3 7%
Other 15 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 41%
Unspecified 8 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Engineering 3 7%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Other 7 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. 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 30 May 2018.
All research outputs
#445,470
of 13,480,425 outputs
Outputs from Noise & Health
#13
of 327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,400
of 278,971 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Noise & Health
#1
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,480,425 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 327 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 278,971 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 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.