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 |
Regional Variation in Causes of Injuries among Terrorism Victims for Mass Casualty Events
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Public Health, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpubh.2015.00198 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
James L. Regens, Amy Schultheiss, Nick Mould |
| Abstract |
The efficient allocation of medical resources to prepare for and respond to mass casualty events (MCEs) attributable to intentional acts of terrorism is a major challenge confronting disaster planners and emergency personnel. This research article examines variation in regional patterns in the causes of injures associated with 77,258 successful terrorist attacks that occurred between 1970 and 2013 involving the use of explosives, firearms, and/or incendiaries. The objective of this research is to estimate regional variation in the use of different conventional weapons in successful terrorist attacks in each world region on variation in injury cause distributions. Indeed, we find that the distributions of the number of injuries attributable to specific weapons types (i.e., by cause) vary greatly among the 13 world regions identified within the Global Terrorism Database. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 4 | 21% |
| Unknown | 2 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 21% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 11% |
| Engineering | 2 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 3 | 16% |
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 17 August 2015.
All research outputs
#18,423,683
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#5,679
of 9,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,848
of 266,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#34
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,848 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 266,077 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.