↓ Skip to main content

Are you a SCEPTIC? SoCial mEdia Precision

Overview of attention for article published in Emergency Medicine Journal, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#43 of 2,957)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
95 tweeters
weibo
1 weibo user
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 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
Are you a SCEPTIC? SoCial mEdia Precision & uTility In Conferences.
Published in
Emergency Medicine Journal, December 2014
DOI 10.1136/emermed-2014-204216
Pubmed ID
Authors

Damian Roland, Natalie May, Richard Body, Simon Carley, Mark D Lyttle, Roland D, May N, Body R, Carley S, Lyttle MD

Abstract

We analysed Twitter feeds at an emergency medicine scientific conference to determine the (1) accuracy of disseminated educational messages and the (2) use in providing rapid feedback to speakers. Most speakers were happy for key messages to be tweeted, and the majority of tweets (34/37) represented these accurately. It is important that speakers and conference organisers consider Twitter use and its potential benefits and disadvantages.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 95 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 5%
United States 1 5%
Unknown 17 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 32%
Other 4 21%
Researcher 3 16%
Professor 1 5%
Student > Postgraduate 1 5%
Other 4 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 42%
Social Sciences 5 26%
Unspecified 3 16%
Decision Sciences 1 5%
Computer Science 1 5%
Other 1 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 98. 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 28 November 2017.
All research outputs
#134,472
of 12,211,623 outputs
Outputs from Emergency Medicine Journal
#43
of 2,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,462
of 275,736 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emergency Medicine Journal
#2
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,211,623 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 2,957 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. 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 275,736 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 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 96% of its contemporaries.