↓ Skip to main content

Electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) battery-related burns presenting to US emergency departments, 2016

Overview of attention for article published in Injury Epidemiology, March 2018
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 (#29 of 197)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
27 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) battery-related burns presenting to US emergency departments, 2016
Published in
Injury Epidemiology, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40621-018-0135-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catherine G. Corey, Joanne T. Chang, Brian L. Rostron

Abstract

Currently, an estimated 7.9 million US adults use electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). Although published reports have identified fires and explosions related to use of ENDS since 2009, these reports do not provide national estimates of burn injuries associated with ENDS batteries in the US. We analyzed nationally representative data provided in the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) to estimate the number of US emergency department (ED) visits for burn injuries associated with ENDS batteries. We reviewed the case narrative field to gain additional insights into the circumstances of the burn injury. In 2016, 26 ENDS battery-related burn cases were captured by NEISS, which translates to a national estimate of 1007 (95%CI: 357-1657) injuries presenting in US EDs. Most of the burns were thermal burns (80.4%) and occurred to the upper leg/lower trunk (77.3%). Examination of the case narrative field indicated that at least 20 of the burn injuries occurred while ENDS batteries were in the user's pocket. Our study provides valuable information for understanding the current burden of ENDS battery-related burn injuries treated in US EDs. The nature and circumstances of the injuries suggest these incidents were unintentional and would potentially be prevented through battery design requirements, battery testing standards and public education related to ENDS battery safety.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 17%
Professor 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Other 5 22%
Unknown 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 17%
Psychology 4 17%
Environmental Science 2 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 7 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 January 2020.
All research outputs
#629,019
of 15,917,403 outputs
Outputs from Injury Epidemiology
#29
of 197 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,547
of 279,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Injury Epidemiology
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,917,403 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 197 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 37.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 279,587 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them