↓ Skip to main content
What is this page? Embed badge

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 (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

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

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
Summary Twitter Facebook Google+ Dimensions citations
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
25652087
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.

View on publisher site

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 342 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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Argentina 1 1%
Unknown 74 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 17%
Student > Master 12 15%
Other 10 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 16 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 29%
Computer Science 7 9%
Social Sciences 7 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 20 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 216. 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 04 September 2020.
All research outputs
#162,483
of 23,967,950 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Infectious Diseases
#396
of 16,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,947
of 358,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Infectious Diseases
#4
of 184 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,967,950 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 16,110 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 358,048 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 184 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 98% of its contemporaries.

This page is provided by Altmetric.