↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

A survey of French general practitioners on the epidemiology of wounds in family practice

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of General Medicine, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
Title
A survey of French general practitioners on the epidemiology of wounds in family practice
Published in
International Journal of General Medicine, June 2015
DOI 10.2147/ijgm.s75189
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marianne Sarazin, Florence Roberton, Rodolphe Charles, Alessandra Falchi, Solange Gonzales Chiappe, Thierry Blanchon, Frédéric Lucht, Thomas Hanslik

Abstract

To measure the frequency and nature of wounds in patients treated in general practice and to describe the patients' tetanus vaccination status and the sources providing information about this status. A descriptive, prospective, week-long, national electronic survey was conducted among general practitioners within the Sentinelles network. The participation rate was 12.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.6%-14.6%; 130 general practitioners): 197 patients with wounds were reported, and 175 of them were described. Wound frequency was 1.4 (95% CI, 1.2-1.6) per 100 consultations. These wounds had an acute character in 76 (95% CI, 69.7-82.3) of cases, were mostly of traumatic origin (54.8% of cases; 95% CI, 47.5%-62.1%), were more than 24 hours old (67.1%; 95% CI, 59.1%-75.1%), and were clean, without bone and/or muscle decay (94%; 95% CI, 90.5%-97.5%). Vaccination status was known for 71 (95% CI, 64-78) patients. According to the 2013 immunization schedule, 21% (95% CI, 13.9%-28.1%) of the patients had not updated their vaccinations, mostly among the patients older than 75 years. This survey describes in detail the wounds treated in general practice in France and the associated patients' immunization status. It also shows how difficult it is for general practitioners to assess the risk of contracting tetanus and the disease's development. It highlights as well the fact that the ideal solution to assess tetanus risk is an up-to-date immunization schedule.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 38%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Unspecified 1 6%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 50%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Unspecified 1 6%
Unknown 2 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 June 2015.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of General Medicine
#764
of 1,653 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,502
of 281,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of General Medicine
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,653 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 281,411 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.