↓ Skip to main content

Utilisation des réseaux sociaux par les urologues français : résultats d’une étude de l’Association française d’urologie

Overview of attention for article published in Progrès en Urologie, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#8 of 182)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 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
Utilisation des réseaux sociaux par les urologues français : résultats d’une étude de l’Association française d’urologie
Published in
Progrès en Urologie, June 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.purol.2015.03.008
Pubmed ID
Authors

V. Misrai, C. Castagnola, J.-L. Descotes, M. Rouprêt

Abstract

Social Media (SoMe) have changed the face of modern medicine. Our purpose was to make an inventory on the use of SoMe within urologists members of the French Urological Association (AFU). A 15 questions-survey was sent by email 2months to urologists AFU members before the 108th French Congress of Urology (#CFU2014). At the same time, the activity of urologists using Twitter was analyzed over the period of the national conference with the symplur software (www.symplur.com). Overall, 270 (17.3%) surveys were completed. Only 50% of responders had an online SoMe account. The most commonly used social media platforms were: Facebook (36.1%) followed by LinkedIn (28.2%), Google+ (19.6%), YouTube (18.7%) and Twitter (17.4%). The use of SoMe was higher in the age groups 30-40 and 40-50 years than in older age groups (83% versus 36%). Only 38.7% of respondents reported using SoMe in a professional field. At the congress #CFU2014, there were over 1000 tweets generated by 173 different contributors. Only a minority of French urologists have reported to be connected to SoMe and a predominantly personal use. The emergence of Twitter in French urological conferences is very new but seems promising. Further studies are needed, especially within the members of the residents French urological association to better characterize the true impact of SoMe in urology. 4.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 1 10%
Unknown 9 90%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 1 10%
Unknown 9 90%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 14 March 2016.
All research outputs
#1,292,482
of 12,439,206 outputs
Outputs from Progrès en Urologie
#8
of 182 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,458
of 224,165 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Progrès en Urologie
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,439,206 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 182 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 224,165 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.