↓ Skip to main content

Global Emergency Medicine Journal Club: A Social Media Discussion About the Lack of Association Between Press Ganey Scores and Emergency Department Analgesia

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Emergency Medicine, January 2016
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 (94th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
25 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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 Lack of Association Between Press Ganey Scores and Emergency Department Analgesia
Published in
Annals of Emergency Medicine, January 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.04.012
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lauren Westafer, Justin Hensley, Sameed Shaikh, Michelle Lin

Abstract

Annals of Emergency Medicine collaborated with an educational Web site, Academic Life in Emergency Medicine (ALiEM), to host a public discussion featuring the 2014 Annals article on the association between Press Ganey scores and emergency department (ED) analgesia by Schwartz et al. The objective was to curate a 14-day (December 1 through 14, 2014) worldwide academic dialogue among clinicians in regard to preselected questions about the article. 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. Engagement was tracked through Web analytic tools and analysis of tweets. Blog comments, tweets, and video expert commentary involving the featured article are summarized and reported. The dialogue resulted in 978 page views from 342 cities in 33 countries on the ALiEM Web site, 464,345 Twitter impressions, and 83 views of the video interview with experts. Of the unique 169 identified tweets, discussion (53.3%) and learning points (32.5%) were the most common category of tweets identified. Common themes that arose in the open-access multimedia discussions included Press Ganey data validity and the utility of patient satisfaction in determining pain treatment efficacy. This educational approach using social media technologies demonstrates a free, asynchronous means to engage a worldwide scholarly discourse.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 5%
Switzerland 1 3%
Australia 1 3%
Indonesia 1 3%
Unknown 34 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 15%
Researcher 6 15%
Other 6 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Unspecified 3 8%
Other 13 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 46%
Unspecified 6 15%
Social Sciences 4 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Linguistics 3 8%
Other 5 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 03 May 2016.
All research outputs
#493,225
of 12,196,947 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Emergency Medicine
#458
of 4,404 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,356
of 230,449 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Emergency Medicine
#26
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,196,947 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,404 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 230,449 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.