↓ Skip to main content

Shortcomings in snake bite management in rural Cameroon: a case report

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
Shortcomings in snake bite management in rural Cameroon: a case report
Published in
BMC Research Notes, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13104-017-2518-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frank-Leonel Tianyi, Christian Akem Dimala, Vitalis Fambombi Feteh

Abstract

Snake bites are an important public health problem in developing countries with most bites occurring in rural areas. Severe envenomation often occurs in children and following bites to the face. Prompt administration of potent anti-venom remains the mainstay of management. However in Cameroon, the use of anti-venoms is limited by non-availability, high cost (where available) and poor mastery of treatment guidelines. We present a 10-year-old muslim Cameroonian child from an enclaved rural area, brought to the hospital 12 h after a snake bite to the face, with signs of severe envenomation. Despite the suboptimal anti-venom dose administered to this patient due to a stock out of this medication, supportive therapy was beneficial in ensuring a positive outcome and satisfactory recovery. This highlights snake bites as a public health problem due to the lack of snake anti-venoms in peripheral health facilities, rendering them unable to appropriately manage these cases. National health policies should encourage constant peripheral availability of anti-venoms and the institution of an intervention package for snake bite management, comprising: treatment protocol, staff training, monitoring of compliance and community education to help reduce the mortality and morbidity from snake bites.

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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 17%
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Student > Postgraduate 4 10%
Other 4 10%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 10 24%
Unknown 7 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 17%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 7%
Linguistics 1 2%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 10 24%

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 19 June 2017.
All research outputs
#9,112,567
of 11,383,682 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,717
of 2,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,464
of 263,502 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#42
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,383,682 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 2,479 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 263,502 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 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.