↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating on-line health information for patients with polymyalgia rheumatica: a descriptive study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
Title
Evaluating on-line health information for patients with polymyalgia rheumatica: a descriptive study
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12891-017-1416-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arani Vivekanantham, Joanne Protheroe, Sara Muller, Samantha Hider

Abstract

The Internet is increasingly used to access health information, although the quality of information varies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the readability, and quality of websites about polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR). Three UK search engines (Google, Yahoo and Bing) were searched for the term 'polymyalgia rheumatica'. After deleting duplicates, the first 50 eligible websites from each were evaluated. Readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease and 'Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Readability' indicators. Credibility was assessed using a previously published Credibility Indicator. Of the 52 unique websites identified, the mean (standard deviation) Flesch Reading Ease and SMOG Readability scores were 48 (15) and 10 (2), respectively. The mean (SD) Credibility Indicator was 2 (1). Fifty (96%) of websites were accurate. Website design and content was good, with an average of 68 and 64% respectively, of the assessed criteria being met. Most websites about PMR require a higher readability age than is recommended. Thus whilst websites are often well designed and accurate this study suggests that their content could be refined and simplified to maximise patient benefit.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Other 11 28%
Unknown 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Mathematics 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 9 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 14 December 2017.
All research outputs
#4,085,810
of 24,189,858 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#796
of 4,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,306
of 426,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#16
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,189,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,256 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 426,306 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.