↓ 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
  • 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
88 X users
weibo
1 weibo user
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 88 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 4%
United States 1 4%
Unknown 26 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 25%
Other 4 14%
Researcher 3 11%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 7 25%
Unknown 3 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 36%
Social Sciences 4 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Computer Science 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 7 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 91. 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 06 May 2019.
All research outputs
#462,457
of 25,240,298 outputs
Outputs from Emergency Medicine Journal
#82
of 4,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,535
of 373,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emergency Medicine Journal
#3
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,240,298 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 4,546 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. 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 373,366 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 55 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.