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

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 (#46 of 1,747)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
59 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley

What is this page?

Summary Twitter Facebook Dimensions citations
Title
Prostate cancer and social media
Published in
Nature Reviews Urology, April 2018
DOI 10.1038/s41585-018-0006-0
Pubmed ID
29643501
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.

View on publisher site

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 59 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 16%
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 8 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Computer Science 4 11%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 12 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 10 September 2019.
All research outputs
#573,408
of 15,096,696 outputs
Outputs from Nature Reviews Urology
#46
of 1,747 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,241
of 279,192 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Reviews Urology
#3
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,096,696 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 1,747 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. 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 279,192 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 92% 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 94% of its contemporaries.

This page is provided by Altmetric.