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 |
Comparative effectiveness of helicopter emergency medical services compared to ground emergency medical services
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc12779 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Samuel M Galvagno |
| Abstract |
The use of helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) for the transportation and treatment of trauma patients, while commonplace in most developed nations, remains controversial. The purported beneficial effects of HEMS compared to ground emergency medical services is likely to be some combination of speed, crew expertise, and the fact that HEMS is part of an organized trauma system. When the HEMS literature is assessed as a whole, considerable heterogeneity of effects and study methodologies preclude an accurate estimate of composite effect. However, when the outcome of mortality is studied using advanced multivariable regression techniques to control for multiple known confounders, an improved odds of survival has been repeatedly demonstrated. Future HEMS research must rely on robust observational study designs and assessments of a variety of patient outcomes. Questions about the role of speed, distance, and other potentially beneficial elements of HEMS remain. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 31 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 24% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 12% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 24% |
| Unknown | 5 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 70% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 5 | 15% |
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 29 May 2018.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,467
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,333
of 206,369 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#65
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 206,369 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.