↓ Skip to main content

Clinical review: The Israeli experience: conventional terrorism and critical care

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, June 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
Clinical review: The Israeli experience: conventional terrorism and critical care
Published in
Critical Care, June 2005
DOI 10.1186/cc3762
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gabriella Aschkenasy-Steuer, Micha Shamir, Avraham Rivkind, Rami Mosheiff, Yigal Shushan, Guy Rosenthal, Yoav Mintz, Charles Weissman, Charles L Sprung, Yoram G Weiss

Abstract

Over the past four years there have been 93 multiple-casualty terrorist attacks in Israel, 33 of them in Jerusalem. The Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center is the only Level I trauma center in Jerusalem and has therefore gained important experience in caring for critically injured patients. To do so we have developed a highly flexible operational system for managing the general intensive care unit (GICU). The focus of this review will be on the organizational steps needed to provide operational flexibility, emphasizing the importance of forward deployment of intensive care unit personnel to the trauma bay and emergency room and the existence of a chain of command to limit chaos. A retrospective review of the hospital's response to multiple-casualty terror incidents occurring between 1 October 2000 and 1 September 2004 was performed. Information was assembled from the medical center's trauma registry and from GICU patient admission and discharge records. Patients are described with regard to the severity and type of injury. The organizational work within intensive care is described. Finally, specific issues related to the diagnosis and management of lung, brain, orthopedic and abdominal injuries, caused by bomb blast events associated with shrapnel, are described. This review emphasizes the importance of a multidisciplinary team approach in caring for these patients.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 57 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Other 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Other 16 27%
Unknown 10 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 53%
Engineering 6 10%
Psychology 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Physics and Astronomy 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 11 19%
Attention Score in Context

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 02 December 2017.
All research outputs
#15,110,416
of 25,403,829 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,974
of 6,561 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,176
of 67,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#16
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,403,829 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,561 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 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 67,579 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.