↓ Skip to main content

Towards solving enigmas in electrical injury

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, March 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Towards solving enigmas in electrical injury
Published in
Critical Care, March 2012
DOI 10.1186/cc11209
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher Andrews, Christopher Andrews

Abstract

The paper by Park and colleagues in the previous issue of Critical Care highlights vascular changes in electrical injury and finds them to be relatively long-lasting and significant. This finding is consistent with long-lasting disability seen clinically in electrically injured patients. Furthermore, the authors report that the changes seen in the shocked part of the body are accompanied by similar changes that are measurable in other parts of the body but that are not involved with electric current. This latter finding is of significant importance. A psychological syndrome - consistent and predictable - exists following an electrical injury. The causation is enigmatic. Recent psychiatric research indicates the importance of circulating cortisol and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), which causes loss of hippocampal volume, in the genesis of depression. This psychiatric research has stimulated a speculative theory of the genesis of the psychological effects of electric shock. The paper by Park and colleagues is circumstantial support for the possibility that such a process is real and available.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 11%
Unknown 16 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 4 22%
Other 4 22%
Student > Master 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Professor 1 6%
Other 4 22%
Unknown 1 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 78%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Neuroscience 1 6%
Environmental Science 1 6%
Unknown 1 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 28 July 2014.
All research outputs
#6,699,673
of 9,233,965 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,027
of 3,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,509
of 96,260 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#72
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,233,965 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,538 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 96,260 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.