↓ Skip to main content

Online Discussion on #KidneyStones: A Longitudinal Assessment of Activity, Users and Content

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS ONE, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Online Discussion on #KidneyStones: A Longitudinal Assessment of Activity, Users and Content
Published in
PLoS ONE, August 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0160863
Pubmed ID
Authors

Johannes Salem, Hendrik Borgmann, Matthew Bultitude, Hans-Martin Fritsche, Axel Haferkamp, Axel Heidenreich, Arkadiusz Miernik, Andreas Neisius, Thomas Knoll, Christian Thomas, Igor Tsaur

Abstract

Twitter is a popular microblogging platform for the rapid dissemination of information and reciprocal exchange in the urological field. We aimed to assess the activity, users and content of the online discussion, #KidneyStones, on Twitter. We investigated the Symplur Signals analytics tool for Twitter data distributed via the #KidneyStones hashtag over a one year period. Activity analysis reflected overall activity and tweet enhancements. We assessed users' geolocations and performed an influencer analysis. Content analysis included the most frequently used words, tweet sentiment and shares for top tweets. 3,426 users generated over 10,333 tweets, which were frequently accompanied by links (49%), mentions (30%) and photos (13%). Users came from 106 countries across the globe and were most frequently from North America (63%) and Europe (16%). Individual and organisational healthcare professionals made up 56% of the influencers of the Twitter discussion on #KidneyStones. Besides the words 'kidney' (used 4,045 times) and 'stones' (3,335), 'pain' (1,233), 'urine' (1,158), and 'risk' (1,023) were the most frequently used words. 56% of tweets had a positive sentiment. The median (range) number of shares was 85 (62-587) for the top 10 links, 45.5 (17-94) for the top 10 photos, and 44 (22-95) for the top 10 retweets. The rapidly growing Twitter discussion on #KidneyStones engaged multiple stakeholders in the healthcare sector on a global scale and reached both professionals and laypeople. When used effectively and responsibly, the Twitter platform could improve prevention and medical care of kidney stone patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 3 17%
Student > Postgraduate 3 17%
Student > Master 3 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Librarian 2 11%
Other 5 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 6 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 22%
Unspecified 4 22%
Computer Science 1 6%
Mathematics 1 6%
Other 2 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 05 August 2017.
All research outputs
#1,233,573
of 12,106,553 outputs
Outputs from PLoS ONE
#21,647
of 133,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,925
of 262,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS ONE
#732
of 4,351 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,106,553 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 133,210 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 262,767 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,351 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.