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 |
Updated systematic review: associations between proximity to animal feeding operations and health of individuals in nearby communities
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-017-0465-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Annette M. O’Connor, Brent W. Auvermann, Rungano S. Dzikamunhenga, Julie M. Glanville, Julian P. T. Higgins, Shelley P. Kirychuk, Jan M. Sargeant, Sarah C. Totton, Hannah Wood, Susanna G. Von Essen |
| Abstract |
The objective of this review was to update a systematic review of associations between living near an animal feeding operation (AFO) and human health. The MEDLINE® and MEDLINE® In-Process, Centre for Agricultural Biosciences Abstracts, and Science Citation Index databases were searched. Reference lists of included articles were hand-searched. Eligible studies reported exposure to an AFO and an individual-level human health outcome. Two reviewers performed study selection and data extraction. The search returned 3702 citations. Sixteen articles consisting of 10 study populations were included in the analysis. The health outcomes were lower and upper respiratory tracts, MRSA, other infectious disease, neurological, psychological, dermatological, otologic, ocular, gastrointestinal, stress and mood, and other non-infectious health outcomes. Most studies were observational and used prevalence measures of outcome. An association between Q fever risk and proximity to goat production was reported. Other associations were unclear. Risk of bias was serious or critical for most exposure-outcome associations. Multiplicity (i.e., a large number of potentially correlated outcomes and exposures assessed on the same study subjects) was common in the evidence base. Few studies reported an association between surrogate clinical outcomes and AFO proximity for respiratory tract-related outcomes. There were no consistent dose-response relationships between surrogate clinical outcome and AFO proximity. A new finding was that Q fever in goats is likely associated with an increased Q fever risk in community members. The review results for the non-respiratory health outcomes were inconclusive because only a small number of studies were available or the between-study results were inconsistent. PROSPERO CRD42014010521. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 4 | 80% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 82 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 15% |
| Researcher | 12 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 11% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 12 | 15% |
| Unknown | 28 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 17% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 5 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 6% |
| Environmental Science | 5 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 16% |
| Unknown | 37 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 19 December 2017.
All research outputs
#12,839,346
of 22,965,074 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,355
of 2,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,084
of 310,294 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#28
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,965,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,004 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 310,294 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.