| Title |
Electric fans for reducing adverse health impacts in heatwaves
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd009888.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Saurabh Gupta, Catriona Carmichael, Christina Simpson, Mike J Clarke, Claire Allen, Yang Gao, Emily Y Y Chan, Virginia Murray |
| Abstract |
Heatwaves are hot weather events, which breach regional or national thresholds, that last for several days. They are likely to occur with increasing frequency in some parts of the world. The potential consequences were illustrated in Europe in August 2003 when there were an estimated 30,000 excess deaths due to a heatwave. Electric fans might be used with the intention of reducing the adverse health effects of a heatwave. Fans do not cool the ambient air but can be used to draw in cooler air from outside when placed at an open window. The aim of the fans would be to increase heat loss by increasing the efficiency of all normal methods of heat loss, but particularly by evaporation and convection methods. However, it should be noted that increased sweating can lead to dehydration and electrolyte imbalances if these fluids and electrolytes are not replaced quickly enough. Research has also identified important gaps in knowledge about the use of fans, which might lead to their inappropriate use. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 80 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 Kingdom | 22 | 28% |
| United States | 5 | 6% |
| Spain | 3 | 4% |
| Belgium | 3 | 4% |
| Canada | 3 | 4% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 3% |
| India | 2 | 3% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Sweden | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 36 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 57 | 71% |
| Scientists | 10 | 13% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 5% |
| Unknown | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 302 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
| Unknown | 299 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 49 | 16% |
| Researcher | 45 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 35 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 24 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 5% |
| Other | 42 | 14% |
| Unknown | 92 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 70 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 31 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 21 | 7% |
| Psychology | 15 | 5% |
| Environmental Science | 12 | 4% |
| Other | 51 | 17% |
| Unknown | 102 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 194. 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 22 September 2023.
All research outputs
#198,001
of 24,932,492 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#341
of 13,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#836
of 169,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6
of 182 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,932,492 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 13,006 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 169,386 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 182 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 97% of its contemporaries.