| Title |
Radiology smartphone applications; current provision and cautions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Insights into Imaging, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13244-013-0274-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
M. A. Rodrigues, A. Visvanathan, J. T. Murchison, R. R. Brady |
| Abstract |
Medical smartphone applications are increasingly popular amongst doctors. However, the quality of their content is variable. We assessed contemporary radiology-related smartphone applications, focussing on the level of advertised medical involvement in application development. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 | 3 | 43% |
| United States | 3 | 43% |
| Unknown | 1 | 14% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 1 | 1% |
| Argentina | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 69 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 17% |
| Researcher | 10 | 14% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 19 | 27% |
| Unknown | 7 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 41 | 58% |
| Computer Science | 7 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Unknown | 9 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 19 February 2015.
All research outputs
#7,111,828
of 25,162,879 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#437
of 1,185 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,314
of 204,533 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#6
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,162,879 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,185 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 204,533 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 54% of its contemporaries.