↓ Skip to main content

Representations of Stem Cell Clinics on Twitter

Overview of attention for article published in Stem Cell Reviews and Reports, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#12 of 1,036)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
50 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
Title
Representations of Stem Cell Clinics on Twitter
Published in
Stem Cell Reviews and Reports, June 2014
DOI 10.1007/s12015-014-9534-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kalina Kamenova, Amir Reshef, Timothy Caulfield

Abstract

The practice of travelling abroad to receive unproven and unregulated stem cell treatments has become an increasingly problematic global phenomenon known as 'stem cell tourism'. In this paper, we examine representations of nine major clinics and providers of such treatments on the microblogging network Twitter. We collected and conducted a content analysis of Twitter posts (n = 363) by these establishments and by other users mentioning them, focusing specifically on marketing claims about treatment procedures and outcomes, discussions of safety and efficacy of stem cell transplants, and specific representations of patients' experiences. Our analysis has shown that there were explicit claims or suggestions of benefits associated with unproven stem cell treatments in approximately one third of the tweets and that patients' experiences, whenever referenced, were presented as invariably positive and as testimonials about the efficacy of stem cell transplants. Furthermore, the results indicated that the tone of most tweets (60.2 %) was overwhelmingly positive and there were rarely critical discussions about significant health risks associated with unproven stem cell therapies. When placed in the context of past research on the problems associated with the marketing of unproven stem cell therapies, this analysis of representations on Twitter suggests that discussions in social media have also remained largely uncritical of the stem cell tourism phenomenon, with inaccurate representations of risks and benefits for patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 50 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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Colombia 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 51 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 20%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 10 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 22%
Social Sciences 7 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 9%
Psychology 4 7%
Computer Science 3 6%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 14 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 58. 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 20 March 2017.
All research outputs
#729,364
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Reviews and Reports
#12
of 1,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,786
of 242,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Reviews and Reports
#1
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 1,036 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 242,577 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 26 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 96% of its contemporaries.