↓ Skip to main content

The Evolution of the Journal Club: From Osler to Twitter

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Kidney Diseases, June 2017
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 (#14 of 3,534)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
4 blogs
twitter
424 tweeters
facebook
7 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
The Evolution of the Journal Club: From Osler to Twitter
Published in
American Journal of Kidney Diseases, June 2017
DOI 10.1053/j.ajkd.2016.12.012
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joel M. Topf, Matthew A. Sparks, Paul J. Phelan, Nikhil Shah, Edgar V. Lerma, Matthew P.M. Graham-Brown, Hector Madariaga, Francesco Iannuzzella, Michelle N. Rheault, Thomas Oates, Kenar D. Jhaveri, Swapnil Hiremath

Abstract

Journal clubs have typically been held within the walls of academic institutions and in medicine have served the dual purpose of fostering critical appraisal of literature and disseminating new findings. In the last decade and especially the last few years, online and virtual journal clubs have been started and are flourishing, especially those harnessing the advantages of social media tools and customs. This article reviews the history and recent innovations of journal clubs. In addition, the authors describe their experience developing and implementing NephJC, an online nephrology journal club conducted on Twitter.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 424 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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 16%
Other 7 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Researcher 7 11%
Librarian 5 8%
Other 27 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 56%
Unspecified 7 11%
Social Sciences 5 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Other 10 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 270. 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 18 July 2019.
All research outputs
#46,013
of 13,636,124 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Kidney Diseases
#14
of 3,534 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,275
of 257,224 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Kidney Diseases
#1
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,636,124 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 3,534 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. 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 257,224 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 80 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.