| Title |
Email for communicating results of diagnostic medical investigations to patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd007980.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Barbara Meyer, Helen Atherton, Prescilla Sawmynaden, Josip Car |
| Abstract |
As medical care becomes more complex and the ability to test for conditions grows, pressure on healthcare providers to convey increasing volumes of test results to patients is driving investigation of alternative technological solutions for their delivery. This review addresses the use of email for communicating results of diagnostic medical investigations to patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 120 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 22 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 11% |
| Researcher | 13 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 19 | 15% |
| Unknown | 38 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 10% |
| Psychology | 12 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 6% |
| Unknown | 46 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 08 February 2024.
All research outputs
#14,657,487
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,845
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,296
of 186,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#161
of 209 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 186,217 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 209 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.