↓ Skip to main content

THE USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA IN ENDOUROLOGY: AN ANALYSIS OF THE 2013 WORLD CONGRESS OF ENDOUROLOGY MEETING.

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Endourology, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#48 of 799)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
THE USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA IN ENDOUROLOGY: AN ANALYSIS OF THE 2013 WORLD CONGRESS OF ENDOUROLOGY MEETING.
Published in
Journal of Endourology, July 2014
DOI 10.1089/end.2014.0329
Pubmed ID
Authors

Noah E Canvasser, Christina Ramo, Todd M Morgan, Kai Zheng, Brent Keith Hollenbeck, Khurshid R Ghani

Abstract

Objective: To examine the use of social media within Endourology by reporting on its utilization during the 2013 World Congress of Endourology (WCE) annual meeting. Materials and Methods: Two social media platforms were analyzed for this study: Twitter (San Francisco, CA), and LinkedIn (Mountain View, CA). For Twitter, a third-party analysis service (Tweetreach, San Francisco, CA) was used to quantitatively analyze all tweets with the hashtags #WCE2013 and #WCE13 during a 7-day period surrounding the WCE. Two reviewers independently classified tweet content using a pre-defined Twitter-specific classification system. Tweet sentiment was determined using sentiment analysis software (Semantria Inc, Amherst, MA). Finally, the penetration of Twitter and LinkedIn within the WCE faculty was assessed by means of a manual search. Results: During the study period, 335 tweets had the hashtag #WCE2013 or #WCE13. Content originated from 68 users resulting in a mean of 47 tweets/day and 4.9 tweets/contributor. Conference related tweets had a reach of 38,141 unique Twitter accounts and an online exposure of 188,629 impressions. Physicians generated the majority of the content (63%), of which 55.8% were not attending the meeting. More tweets were informative (56.7%) vs. uninformative (43.3%), and 17.9% had links to an external web citation. The mean sentiment score was 0.13 (range -0.90 to 1.80); 13.1%, 57.0% and 29.9% of tweets were negative, neutral and positive in sentiment, respectively. Of 302 WCE meeting faculty, 150 (49.7%) had registered LinkedIn accounts while only 52 (17.2%) had Twitter accounts, and only 19.2% tweeted during the meeting. Conclusions: Despite a relatively low number of Twitter users, tweeting about the WCE meeting dramatically increased its online exposure with dissemination of content that was mostly informative including engagement with physicians not attending the conference. While half of faculty at WCE 2013 had LinkedIn accounts, their social media footprint in Twitter was limited.

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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 4%
Germany 1 4%
Australia 1 4%
United Kingdom 1 4%
United States 1 4%
Unknown 23 82%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 25%
Other 6 21%
Researcher 4 14%
Student > Master 3 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Other 6 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 39%
Computer Science 5 18%
Unspecified 3 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Other 6 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 September 2017.
All research outputs
#1,518,509
of 11,788,586 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Endourology
#48
of 799 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,638
of 189,200 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Endourology
#2
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,788,586 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 799 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 189,200 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 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 95% of its contemporaries.