Title |
Advanced training in trauma life support for ambulance crews
|
---|---|
Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2014
|
DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd003109.pub3 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Sudha Jayaraman, Dinesh Sethi, Roger Wong |
Abstract |
There is an increasing global burden of injury especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). To address this, models of trauma care initially developed in high income countries are being adopted in LMIC settings. In particular, ambulance crews with advanced life support (ALS) training are being promoted in LMICs as a strategy for improving outcomes for victims of trauma. However, there is controversy as to the effectiveness of this health service intervention and the evidence has yet to be rigorously appraised. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 8 | 30% |
Australia | 2 | 7% |
South Africa | 1 | 4% |
Sweden | 1 | 4% |
Italy | 1 | 4% |
Saudi Arabia | 1 | 4% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 4% |
Netherlands | 1 | 4% |
Mexico | 1 | 4% |
Other | 1 | 4% |
Unknown | 9 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 20 | 74% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 22% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 226 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Spain | 1 | <1% |
United States | 1 | <1% |
Ecuador | 1 | <1% |
Belgium | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 222 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 35 | 15% |
Student > Bachelor | 23 | 10% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 9% |
Researcher | 16 | 7% |
Student > Postgraduate | 16 | 7% |
Other | 51 | 23% |
Unknown | 64 | 28% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 75 | 33% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 26 | 12% |
Social Sciences | 13 | 6% |
Psychology | 9 | 4% |
Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 6 | 3% |
Other | 23 | 10% |
Unknown | 74 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 March 2023.
All research outputs
#1,350,497
of 23,467,261 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,110
of 12,702 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,504
of 237,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#55
of 225 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,467,261 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,702 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 237,421 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 225 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.