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 |
Harmful effects from one puff of shisha-pen vapor: methodological and interpretational problems in the risk assessment analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Tobacco Induced Diseases, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12971-016-0086-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Konstantinos E. Farsalinos, Frank Baeyens |
| Abstract |
With this letter we express our concerns about the applicability of the proposed Margin of Exposure analysis as a method of risk assessment for propylene glycol and glycerol exposure from a shisha-pen type electronic cigarette. The studies used to determine the Margin of Exposure were evaluating the effects in humans or animals of continuous exposure to these chemicals in every single breath, whereas electronic cigarettes are used intermittently by consumers, resulting in lower and discontinuous exposure. Moreover, the authors make no clear distinction between irritation and harm, neither do they discuss the effects of exposure compared to continuous smoking. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 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 | 7 | 20% |
| Netherlands | 5 | 14% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 9% |
| Canada | 2 | 6% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 3% |
| Bosnia and Herzegovina | 1 | 3% |
| Greece | 1 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Germany | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 13 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 31 | 89% |
| Scientists | 2 | 6% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 14% |
| Professor | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Unknown | 7 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 5 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 14% |
| Environmental Science | 3 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 7% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 8 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 April 2022.
All research outputs
#1,796,552
of 25,743,152 outputs
Outputs from Tobacco Induced Diseases
#46
of 612 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,037
of 372,334 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tobacco Induced Diseases
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,743,152 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 612 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 372,334 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 91% 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 done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.