↓ Skip to main content

Does the Declining Lethality of Gunshot Injuries Mask a Rising Epidemic of Gun Violence in the United States?

Overview of attention for article published in JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
14 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
Title
Does the Declining Lethality of Gunshot Injuries Mask a Rising Epidemic of Gun Violence in the United States?
Published in
JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine, January 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11606-014-2779-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anupam B. Jena, Eric C. Sun, Vinay Prasad

Abstract

Recent mass shootings in the U.S. have reignited the important public health debate concerning measures to decrease the epidemic of gun violence. Editorialists and gun lobbyists have criticized the recent focus on gun violence, arguing that gun-related homicide rates have been stable in the last decade. While true, data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also demonstrate that although gun-related homicide rates were stable between 2002 and 2011, rates of violent gunshot injuries increased. These seemingly paradoxical trends may reflect the declining lethality of gunshot injuries brought about by surgical advances in the care of the patient with penetrating trauma. Focusing on gun-related homicide rates as a summary statistic of gun violence, rather than total violent gunshot injuries, can therefore misrepresent the rising epidemic of gun violence in the U.S.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
Unknown 48 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Other 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Other 22 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 34%
Unspecified 13 26%
Social Sciences 11 22%
Psychology 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 4 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. 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 September 2018.
All research outputs
#367,820
of 13,457,774 outputs
Outputs from JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine
#316
of 4,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,893
of 245,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine
#13
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,457,774 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,839 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 245,118 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.