↓ Skip to main content
What is this page? Embed badge

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 (#28 of 5,154)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
5 blogs
twitter
411 tweeters
facebook
7 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
113 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
144 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Summary Blogs Twitter Facebook Dimensions citations
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
28233653
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.

View on publisher site

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 411 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 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 144 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 14%
Other 14 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 10%
Student > Master 14 10%
Student > Postgraduate 11 8%
Other 46 32%
Unknown 25 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 68 47%
Social Sciences 9 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 24 17%
Unknown 25 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 267. 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 07 April 2021.
All research outputs
#122,272
of 23,929,753 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Kidney Diseases
#28
of 5,154 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,773
of 319,137 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Kidney Diseases
#1
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,929,753 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 5,154 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.1. 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 319,137 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 87 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 99% of its contemporaries.

This page is provided by Altmetric.