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

Global Emergency Medicine Journal Club: A Social Media Discussion About the Outpatient Management of Patients With Spontaneous Pneumothorax by Using Pigtail Catheters

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Emergency Medicine, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
18 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
Summary Blogs Twitter Dimensions citations
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 Outpatient Management of Patients With Spontaneous Pneumothorax by Using Pigtail Catheters
Published in
Annals of Emergency Medicine, October 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.05.002
Pubmed ID
26059486
Authors

N. Seth Trueger, Heather Murray, Scott Kobner, 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 outpatient management of patients with a spontaneous pneumothorax by using pigtail catheters. The objective was to curate a 14-day (November 10 to 23, 2014) worldwide academic dialogue among clinicians about the article. Four 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 4 preselected questions. Engagement was tracked through Web analytic tools. Blog comments, tweets, and video expert commentary involving the featured article are summarized and reported. The dialogue resulted in 1,023 page views from 347 cities in 49 countries on the ALiEM Web site, 279,027 Twitter impressions, and 88 views of the video interview with experts. This Global Emergency Medicine Journal Club created a virtual community of practice from around the world and identified common themes around the management of spontaneous pneumothorax, which included substantial practice variation in regard to inpatient versus outpatient management, location of chest tube, the use of aspiration, and chest radiography after placement.

View on publisher site

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
Ireland 1 2%
Unknown 48 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 18%
Other 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Lecturer 4 8%
Other 12 24%
Unknown 3 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 14%
Social Sciences 5 10%
Computer Science 4 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 8%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 5 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 January 2020.
All research outputs
#1,747,207
of 22,808,725 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Emergency Medicine
#1,120
of 6,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,346
of 274,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Emergency Medicine
#28
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,808,725 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,390 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 well, scoring higher than 82% 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 274,850 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 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 67% of its contemporaries.

This page is provided by Altmetric.