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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Penetrating Brain Injury after Suicide Attempt with Speargun: Case Study and Review of Literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neurology, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fneur.2014.00113 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John R. Williams, Daniel M. Aghion, Curtis E. Doberstein, G. Rees Cosgrove, Wael F. Asaad |
| Abstract |
Penetrating cranial injury by mechanisms other than gunshots are exceedingly rare, and so strategies and guidelines for the management of PBI are largely informed by data from higher-velocity penetrating injuries. Here, we present a case of penetrating brain injury by the low-velocity mechanism of a harpoon from an underwater fishing speargun in an attempted suicide by a 56-year-old Caucasian male. The case raised a number of interesting points in management of low-velocity penetrating brain injury (LVPBI), including benefit in delaying foreign body removal to allow for tamponade; the importance of history-taking in establishing the social/legal significance of the events surrounding the injury; the use of cerebral angiogram in all cases of PBI; advantages of using dual-energy CT to reduce artifact when available; and antibiotic prophylaxis in the context of idiosyncratic histories of usage of penetrating objects before coming in contact with the intracranial environment. We present here the management of the case in full along with an extended discussion and review of existing literature regarding key points in management of LVPBI vs. higher-velocity forms of intracranial injury. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Poland | 1 | 10% |
| Canada | 1 | 10% |
| Spain | 1 | 10% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 10% |
| Sweden | 1 | 10% |
| United States | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 90% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 15% |
| Researcher | 5 | 15% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 10 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 30% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 13 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 13 December 2020.
All research outputs
#6,171,695
of 25,002,204 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#4,217
of 14,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,070
of 231,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#12
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,002,204 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,106 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 231,743 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.