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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Risks and benefits of Twitter use by hematologists/oncologists in the era of digital medicine
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Seminars in Hematology (ScienceDirect), October 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 |
| 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
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 166 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 69 | 42% |
| Australia | 7 | 4% |
| Spain | 6 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 6 | 4% |
| Canada | 4 | 2% |
| Japan | 3 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 1% |
| Ecuador | 2 | 1% |
| Saudi Arabia | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 12 | 7% |
| Unknown | 53 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 97 | 58% |
| Scientists | 33 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 32 | 19% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 119 | 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% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 25 | 21% |
| Unknown | 34 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 39 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 5 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 13 | 11% |
| Unknown | 43 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 101. 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
#404,623
of 24,940,046 outputs
Outputs from Seminars in Hematology (ScienceDirect)
#7
of 513 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,620
of 328,107 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Seminars in Hematology (ScienceDirect)
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,940,046 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 513 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. 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 328,107 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 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.