↓ Skip to main content

Review of Twitter for Infectious Diseases Clinicians: Useful or a Waste of Time?

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, February 2015
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
217 tweeters
facebook
10 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Review of Twitter for Infectious Diseases Clinicians: Useful or a Waste of Time?
Published in
Clinical Infectious Diseases, February 2015
DOI 10.1093/cid/civ071
Pubmed ID
Authors

D. A. Goff, R. Kullar, J. G. Newland

Abstract

Healthcare professionals (HCPs) are using social media tools to communicate, educate and engage with their peers worldwide. Twitter allows HCPs to deliver easily accessible "real-time" clinical information on a global scale. Twitter has over 500 million active users who generate over 58 million tweets and 2.1 billion search queries every day. In this paper, we describe why Twitter is important, how and when an infectious diseases (ID) HCP should use Twitter, the impact it has in disseminating ID news, and the educational value of Twitter. We also describe various tools within Twitter, such as Twitter Chat, that connect and bond HCPs on a specific topic. For the ID HCP, Twitter may help teach the global responsible use of antimicrobials in a world of escalating antimicrobial resistance.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 217 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 3%
United Kingdom 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Argentina 1 3%
Unknown 32 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 22%
Other 5 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Other 9 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 8 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 19%
Engineering 5 14%
Social Sciences 4 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Other 9 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 147. 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 17 October 2018.
All research outputs
#81,752
of 12,264,103 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Infectious Diseases
#95
of 10,167 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,177
of 267,311 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Infectious Diseases
#5
of 243 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,264,103 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,167 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. 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 267,311 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 243 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 97% of its contemporaries.