↓ Skip to main content

Dealing with uncertainties in environmental burden of disease assessment

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Health, April 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
wikipedia
6 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 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
Dealing with uncertainties in environmental burden of disease assessment
Published in
Environmental Health, April 2009
DOI 10.1186/1476-069x-8-21
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne B Knol, Arthur C Petersen, Jeroen P van der Sluijs, Erik Lebret

Abstract

Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) combine the number of people affected by disease or mortality in a population and the duration and severity of their condition into one number. The environmental burden of disease is the number of DALYs that can be attributed to environmental factors. Environmental burden of disease estimates enable policy makers to evaluate, compare and prioritize dissimilar environmental health problems or interventions. These estimates often have various uncertainties and assumptions which are not always made explicit. Besides statistical uncertainty in input data and parameters - which is commonly addressed - a variety of other types of uncertainties may substantially influence the results of the assessment. We have reviewed how different types of uncertainties affect environmental burden of disease assessments, and we give suggestions as to how researchers could address these uncertainties. We propose the use of an uncertainty typology to identify and characterize uncertainties. Finally, we argue that uncertainties need to be identified, assessed, reported and interpreted in order for assessment results to adequately support decision making.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 3%
Netherlands 2 2%
Spain 2 2%
Norway 1 <1%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 96 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 33 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 21%
Student > Master 13 12%
Professor 6 6%
Student > Bachelor 4 4%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 13 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 19 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 15%
Social Sciences 10 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Other 31 29%
Unknown 19 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 23 January 2022.
All research outputs
#4,742,360
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health
#649
of 1,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,123
of 93,344 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health
#5
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 93,344 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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 58% of its contemporaries.