↓ Skip to main content

Risks and benefits of Twitter use by hematologists/oncologists in the era of digital medicine. - PubMed - NCBI

Overview of attention for article published in Seminars in Hematology (ScienceDirect), October 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 (#1 of 304)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
173 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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. - PubMed - NCBI
Published in
Seminars in Hematology (ScienceDirect), October 2017
DOI 10.1053/j.seminhematol.2017.08.001
Pubmed ID
Authors

Attai, Deanna J, Anderson, Patricia F, Fisch, Michael J, Graham, David L, Katz, Matthew S, Kesselheim, Jennifer, Markham, Merry Jennifer, Pennell, Nathan A, Sedrak, Mina S, Thompson, Michael A, Utengen, Audun, Dizon, Don S, , , 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

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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 173 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 15%
Student > Postgraduate 7 15%
Student > Master 7 15%
Researcher 6 13%
Librarian 5 11%
Other 15 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 51%
Unspecified 7 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Computer Science 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Other 7 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 99. 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 03 July 2018.
All research outputs
#132,739
of 12,197,635 outputs
Outputs from Seminars in Hematology (ScienceDirect)
#1
of 304 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,249
of 338,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Seminars in Hematology (ScienceDirect)
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,197,635 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 304 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. 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 338,411 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 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them