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 |
A medical-toxicological view of tattooing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Lancet, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1016/s0140-6736(15)60215-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Peter Laux, Tewes Tralau, Jutta Tentschert, Annegret Blume, Sascha Al Dahouk, Wolfgang Bäumler, Eric Bernstein, Beatrice Bocca, Alessandro Alimonti, Helen Colebrook, Christa de Cuyper, Lars Dähne, Urs Hauri, Paul C Howard, Paul Janssen, Linda Katz, Bruce Klitzman, Nicolas Kluger, Lars Krutak, Thomas Platzek, Victoria Scott-Lang, Jørgen Serup, Wera Teubner, Ines Schreiver, Elena Wilkniß, Andreas Luch |
| Abstract |
Long perceived as a form of exotic self-expression in some social fringe groups, tattoos have left their maverick image behind and become mainstream, particularly for young people. Historically, tattoo-related health and safety regulations have focused on rules of hygiene and prevention of infections. Meanwhile, the increasing popularity of tattooing has led to the development of many new colours, allowing tattoos to be more spectacular than ever before. However, little is known about the toxicological risks of the ingredients used. For risk assessment, safe intradermal application of these pigments needs data for toxicity and biokinetics and increased knowledge about the removal of tattoos. Other concerns are the potential for phototoxicity, substance migration, and the possible metabolic conversion of tattoo ink ingredients into toxic substances. Similar considerations apply to cleavage products that are formed during laser-assisted tattoo removal. In this Review, we summarise the issues of concern, putting them into context, and provide perspectives for the assessment of the acute and chronic health effects associated with tattooing. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 64 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 10 | 16% |
| United States | 8 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 6% |
| South Africa | 2 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 3% |
| Chile | 2 | 3% |
| Colombia | 2 | 3% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 25 | 39% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 46 | 72% |
| Scientists | 11 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 230 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Poland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 226 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 34 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 26 | 11% |
| Researcher | 24 | 10% |
| Other | 16 | 7% |
| Other | 52 | 23% |
| Unknown | 52 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 60 | 26% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 20 | 9% |
| Chemistry | 17 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 14 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 13 | 6% |
| Other | 44 | 19% |
| Unknown | 62 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 224. 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 11 July 2023.
All research outputs
#176,143
of 25,905,864 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet
#2,132
of 43,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,723
of 276,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet
#22
of 431 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,905,864 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 43,080 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 68.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 276,116 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 431 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 94% of its contemporaries.