↓ Skip to main content

Global Emergency Medicine Journal Club: A Social Media Discussion About the Age-Adjusted D-Dimer Cutoff Levels to Rule Out Pulmonary Embolism Trial

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Emergency Medicine, May 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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
45 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
Global Emergency Medicine Journal Club: A Social Media Discussion About the Age-Adjusted D-Dimer Cutoff Levels to Rule Out Pulmonary Embolism Trial
Published in
Annals of Emergency Medicine, May 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.02.024
Pubmed ID
Authors

Salim R. Rezaie, Anand Swaminathan, Teresa Chan, Sam Shaikh, Michelle Lin

Abstract

Annals of Emergency Medicine collaborated with an educational Web site, Academic Life in Emergency Medicine (ALiEM), to host an online discussion session featuring the 2014 Journal of the American Medical Association publication on the Age-Adjusted D-Dimer Cutoff Levels to Rule Out Pulmonary Embolism (ADJUST-PE) trial by Righini et al. The objective is to describe a 14-day (August 25 to September 7, 2014) worldwide academic dialogue among clinicians in regard to 4 preselected questions about the age-adjusted D-dimer cutoff to detect pulmonary embolism. Five online facilitators hosted the multimodal discussion on the ALiEM Web site, Twitter, and Google Hangout. Comments across the social media platforms were curated for this report, as framed by the 4 preselected questions, and engagement was tracked through various Web analytic tools. Blog and Twitter comments, as well as video expert commentary involving the ADJUST-PE trial, are summarized. The dialogue resulted in 1,169 page views from 391 cities in 52 countries on the ALiEM Web site, 502,485 Twitter impressions, and 159 views of the video interview with experts. A postdiscussion summary on the Journal Jam podcast resulted in 3,962 downloads in its first week of publication during September 16 to 23, 2014. Common themes that arose in the multimodal discussions included the heterogeneity of practices, D-dimer assays, provider knowledge about these assays, and prevalence rates in different areas of the world. This educational approach using social media technologies demonstrates a free, asynchronous means to engage a worldwide audience in scholarly discourse.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Unknown 64 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 20%
Other 10 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Other 23 35%
Unknown 4 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 15%
Computer Science 5 8%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 7 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 84. 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 19 June 2016.
All research outputs
#223,589
of 14,411,401 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Emergency Medicine
#187
of 5,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,653
of 225,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Emergency Medicine
#11
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,411,401 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 5,067 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 225,442 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.