↓ Skip to main content

Prostate cancer and social media

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Reviews Urology, April 2018
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 (#21 of 1,607)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
58 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
Title
Prostate cancer and social media
Published in
Nature Reviews Urology, April 2018
DOI 10.1038/s41585-018-0006-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stacy Loeb, Matthew S. Katz, Aisha Langford, Nataliya Byrne, Shannon Ciprut

Abstract

The use of social media is increasing globally and is employed in a variety of ways in the prostate cancer community. In addition to their use in research, advocacy, and awareness campaigns, social media offer vast opportunities for education and networking for patients with prostate cancer and health-care professionals, and many educational resources and support networks are available to patients with prostate cancer and their caregivers. Despite the considerable potential for social media to be employed in the field of prostate cancer, concerns remain - particularly regarding the maintenance of patient confidentiality, variable information quality, and possible financial conflicts of interest. A number of professional societies have, therefore, issued guidance regarding social media use in medicine. Social media are used extensively in other cancer communities, particularly among patients with breast cancer, and both the quantity and type of information available are expected to grow in the future.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 58 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 4 20%
Student > Bachelor 4 20%
Student > Master 3 15%
Researcher 3 15%
Student > Postgraduate 2 10%
Other 4 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 5 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 25%
Computer Science 3 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 10%
Social Sciences 2 10%
Other 3 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. 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 13 September 2018.
All research outputs
#397,594
of 12,633,553 outputs
Outputs from Nature Reviews Urology
#21
of 1,607 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,237
of 274,998 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Reviews Urology
#1
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,633,553 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,607 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. 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 274,998 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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 95% of its contemporaries.