↓ Skip to main content

Child abuse inventory at emergency rooms: CHAIN-ER rationale and design

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pediatrics, October 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 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
Child abuse inventory at emergency rooms: CHAIN-ER rationale and design
Published in
BMC Pediatrics, October 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-2431-11-91
Pubmed ID
Authors

Judith S Sittig, Cuno SPM Uiterwaal, Karel GM Moons, Edward ES Nieuwenhuis, Elise M van de Putte

Abstract

Child abuse and neglect is an important international health problem with unacceptable levels of morbidity and mortality. Although maltreatment as a cause of injury is estimated to be only 1% or less of the injured children attending the emergency room, the consequences of both missed child abuse cases and wrong suspicions are substantial. Therefore, the accuracy of ongoing detection at emergency rooms by health care professionals is highly important. Internationally, several diagnostic instruments or strategies for child abuse detection are used at emergency rooms, but their diagnostic value is still unknown. The aim of the study 'Child Abuse Inventory at Emergency Rooms' (CHAIN-ER) is to assess if active structured inquiry by emergency room staff can accurately detect physical maltreatment in children presenting at emergency rooms with physical injury.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 %
South Africa 1 2%
Unknown 58 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 20%
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Other 5 8%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 11 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 12%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Psychology 2 3%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 14 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 May 2019.
All research outputs
#2,530,165
of 22,655,397 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pediatrics
#350
of 2,971 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,857
of 139,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pediatrics
#2
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,655,397 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,971 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 139,116 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 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 93% of its contemporaries.