↓ Skip to main content

Social Media in Hematology in 2017: Dystopia, Utopia, or Somewhere In-between?

Overview of attention for article published in Current Hematologic Malignancy Reports, October 2017
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 (#20 of 449)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
36 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
Social Media in Hematology in 2017: Dystopia, Utopia, or Somewhere In-between?
Published in
Current Hematologic Malignancy Reports, October 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11899-017-0424-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aaron T. Gerds, Teresa Chan

Abstract

Social media is becoming a crucial part of our society. While the field of medicine has lagged behind in adopting and harnessing these platforms, we are now starting to see a surge in social media usage for medical education and scientific communication (e.g., knowledge translation, research collaboration, discussion, and discourse). Over the course of this review, we aim to update the reader on the way in which Twitter and other social media platforms may be used in hematology for research ideas, collaboration, and scholarly activity. Twitter use has grown exponentially over the past decade and is now woven into the fabric of modern communication. It can be a useful tool for those who wish to engage both colleagues and the public. While some issues such as reporting of financial conflict of interest still need to be addressed, Twitter, and social medial in general, can be a powerful instrument for researchers, educators, patients, and advocacy groups.

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 36 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Student > Postgraduate 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 10 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 31%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Psychology 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Unspecified 2 5%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 13 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 12 November 2020.
All research outputs
#1,938,327
of 26,240,084 outputs
Outputs from Current Hematologic Malignancy Reports
#20
of 449 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,864
of 342,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Hematologic Malignancy Reports
#4
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,240,084 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 449 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 342,117 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.