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 |
Let’s call it “aphasia”: Rationales for eliminating the term “dysphasia”
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Stroke, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1177/1747493016654487 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Linda Worrall, Nina Simmons-Mackie, Sarah J Wallace, Tanya Rose, Marian C Brady, Anthony Pak Hin Kong, Laura Murray, Brooke Hallowell |
| Abstract |
Health professionals, researchers, and policy makers often consider the two terms aphasia and dysphasia to be synonymous. The aim of this article is to argue the merits of the exclusive use of the term aphasia and present a strategy for creating change through institutions such as the WHO-ICD. Our contention is that one term avoids confusion, speech-language pathologists prefer aphasia, scholarly publications indicate a preference for the term aphasia, stroke clinical guidelines indicate a preference for the term aphasia, consumer organizations use the title aphasia in their name and on their websites, and languages other than English use a term similar to aphasia. The use of the term dysphasia in the broader medical community may stem from the two terms being used interchangeably in the ICD10. Aphasia United http://www.shrs.uq.edu.au/aphasiaunited, an international movement for uniting the voice of all stakeholders in aphasia within an international context, will seek to eliminate the use of the term dysphasia. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 98 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 39 | 40% |
| Australia | 13 | 13% |
| United States | 7 | 7% |
| Canada | 3 | 3% |
| Ireland | 3 | 3% |
| Spain | 2 | 2% |
| South Africa | 1 | 1% |
| Belgium | 1 | 1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 28 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 69 | 70% |
| Scientists | 15 | 15% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 3% |
| Unknown | 2 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 15% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Researcher | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 5 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 5 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 15% |
| Linguistics | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 5 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 138. 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 13 July 2023.
All research outputs
#302,513
of 25,587,485 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Stroke
#9
of 1,489 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,997
of 370,558 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Stroke
#2
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,587,485 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,489 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 370,558 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 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 98% of its contemporaries.