↓ Skip to main content

Risks and benefits of Twitter use by hematologists/oncologists in the era of digital medicine

Overview of attention for article published in Seminars in Hematology (ScienceDirect), August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#7 of 531)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
165 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 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
Risks and benefits of Twitter use by hematologists/oncologists in the era of digital medicine
Published in
Seminars in Hematology (ScienceDirect), August 2017
DOI 10.1053/j.seminhematol.2017.08.001
Pubmed ID
Authors

Deanna J. Attai, Patricia F. Anderson, Michael J. Fisch, David L. Graham, Matthew S. Katz, Jennifer Kesselheim, Merry Jennifer Markham, Nathan A. Pennell, Mina S. Sedrak, Michael A. Thompson, Audun Utengen, Don S. Dizon, for the Collaboration for Outcomes on Social Media in Oncology

Abstract

Twitter use by physicians, including those in the hematology-oncology field, is increasing. This microblogging platform provides a means to communicate and collaborate on a global scale. For the oncology professional, an active Twitter presence provides opportunities for continuing medical education, patient engagement and education, personal branding, and reputation management. However, because Twitter is an open, public forum, potential risks such as patient privacy violations, personal information disclosures, professionalism lapses, and time management need to be considered and managed. The authors have summarized the benefits and risks of Twitter use by the hematology-oncology physician. In addition, strategies to maximize benefit and minimize risk are discussed, and resources for additional learning are provided.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 165 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 120 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 13%
Student > Master 16 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Student > Postgraduate 10 8%
Other 7 6%
Other 27 23%
Unknown 33 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 8%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Arts and Humanities 6 5%
Computer Science 4 3%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 42 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 100. 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 August 2023.
All research outputs
#422,973
of 25,411,814 outputs
Outputs from Seminars in Hematology (ScienceDirect)
#7
of 531 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,001
of 327,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Seminars in Hematology (ScienceDirect)
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,411,814 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 531 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 327,759 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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 91% of its contemporaries.