↓ Skip to main content

Health impacts of chemical irritants used for crowd control: a systematic review of the injuries and deaths caused by tear gas and pepper spray

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#3 of 14,136)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
143 news outlets
blogs
6 blogs
twitter
410 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
reddit
2 Redditors
video
2 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 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
Health impacts of chemical irritants used for crowd control: a systematic review of the injuries and deaths caused by tear gas and pepper spray
Published in
BMC Public Health, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4814-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rohini J. Haar, Vincent Iacopino, Nikhil Ranadive, Sheri D. Weiser, Madhavi Dandu

Abstract

Chemical irritants used in crowd control, such as tear gases and pepper sprays, are generally considered to be safe and to cause only transient pain and lacrimation. However, there are numerous reports that use and misuse of these chemicals may cause serious injuries. We aimed to review documented injuries from chemical irritants to better understand the morbidity and mortality associated with these weapons. We conducted a systematic review using PRISMA guidelines to identify injuries, permanent disabilities, and deaths from chemical irritants worldwide between January 1, 1990 and March 15, 2015. We reviewed injuries to different body systems, injury severity, and potential risk factors for injury severity. We also assessed region, context and quality of each included article. We identified 31 studies from 11 countries. These reported on 5131 people who suffered injuries, two of whom died and 58 of whom suffered permanent disabilities. Out of 9261 total injuries, 8.7% were severe and required professional medical management, while 17% were moderate and 74.3% were minor. Severe injuries occurred to all body systems, with the majority of injuries impacting the skin and eyes. Projectile munition trauma caused 231 projectile injuries, with 63 (27%) severe injuries, including major head injury and vision loss. Potentiating factors for more severe injury included environmental conditions, prolonged exposure time, and higher quantities of chemical agent in enclosed spaces. Although chemical weapons may have a limited role in crowd control, our findings demonstrate that they have significant potential for misuse, leading to unnecessary morbidity and mortality. A nuanced understanding of the health impacts of chemical weapons and mitigating factors is imperative to avoiding indiscriminate use of chemical weapons and associated health consequences.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 410 tweeters 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 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 123 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 17%
Student > Master 16 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 11%
Student > Bachelor 12 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 26 21%
Unknown 24 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 22%
Social Sciences 12 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Psychology 6 5%
Other 33 27%
Unknown 30 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1497. 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 09 June 2022.
All research outputs
#5,891
of 21,800,360 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#3
of 14,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109
of 343,564 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#2
of 713 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,800,360 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,136 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 343,564 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 713 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.