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 |
Criteria and models for the distribution of casualties in trauma-related mass casualty incidents: a systematic literature review protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-017-0538-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mohammad Reza Khajehaminian, Ali Ardalan, Sayed Mohsen Hosseini Boroujeni, Amir Nejati, Abbasali Keshtkar, Abbas Rahimi Foroushani, Omid Mahdi Ebadati E. |
| Abstract |
One of the most critical practices in mass casualty incident management is vacating the victims from scene of the incident and transporting them to proper healthcare facilities. Decision on distribution of casualties needs to be taken on pre-developed policies and structured decision support mechanisms. While many studies tried to present models for the distribution of casualties, no systematic review has yet been conducted to evaluate the existing models on casualty distribution following mass casualty incidents. A systematic review is therefore needed to examine the existing models of patient distribution and to provide a summary of the models. This systematic review protocol is aimed to examine the existing models and extracting rules and principles of mass casualty distribution. This study will comprehensively investigate existing papers with search phrases and terms including "mass casualty incident", distribution, evacuation, and Mesh terms directly corresponding to search phrases. No limitations on the type of studies, date of publication, or language of the relevant documents will be imposed. PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar will be searched to access the relevant documents. Included papers will be critically appraised by two independent reviewers. The data including incidents type, scene characteristics, patient features, pre-hospital resources, and hospital resources will be categorized. Subgroup analysis will be conducted when possible. To the best of our knowledge, no study has yet addressed the effects and interaction of contributing factors on the decision-making processes for casualty's distribution. This is the first study that comprehensively assesses and critically appraises the current models of casualty distribution. This study will provide evidences about models and criteria for casualty distribution following mass casualty incidents. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42016049115. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 States | 4 | 67% |
| South Africa | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 73 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 15% |
| Researcher | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 21% |
| Unknown | 23 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 23% |
| Engineering | 3 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Unknown | 26 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 18 August 2017.
All research outputs
#3,231,631
of 23,798,792 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#600
of 2,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,585
of 313,797 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#20
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,798,792 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,065 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. 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 313,797 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.