↓ Skip to main content

Pathology Image-Sharing on Social Media: Recommendations for Protecting Privacy While Motivating Education

Overview of attention for article published in The AMA Journal of Ethic, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#6 of 2,829)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
32 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
564 X users
facebook
12 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
88 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 Mendeley
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.
Title
Pathology Image-Sharing on Social Media: Recommendations for Protecting Privacy While Motivating Education
Published in
The AMA Journal of Ethic, August 2016
DOI 10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.8.stas1-1608
Pubmed ID
Authors

Genevieve M Crane, Jerad M Gardner

Abstract

There is a rising interest in the use of social media by pathologists. However, the use of pathology images on social media has been debated, particularly gross examination, autopsy, and dermatologic condition photographs. The immediacy of the interactions, increased interest from patients and patient groups, and fewer barriers to public discussion raise additional considerations to ensure patient privacy is protected. Yet these very features all add to the power of social media for educating other physicians and the nonmedical public about disease and for creating better understanding of the important role of pathologists in patient care. The professional and societal benefits are overwhelmingly positive, and we believe the potential for harm is minimal provided common sense and routine patient privacy principles are utilized. We lay out ethical and practical guidelines for pathologists who use social media professionally.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 564 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 11%
Other 7 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 23 32%
Unknown 17 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 40%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Linguistics 4 6%
Computer Science 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 18 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 632. 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 21 May 2024.
All research outputs
#37,644
of 26,628,627 outputs
Outputs from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#6
of 2,829 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#667
of 357,845 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#1
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,628,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,829 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. 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 357,845 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 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 97% of its contemporaries.