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

Twitter in urology and other surgical specialties at global conferences

Overview of attention for article published in Australian & New Zealand Journal of Surgery, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#9 of 2,002)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
54 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley

What is this page?

Summary 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
Twitter in urology and other surgical specialties at global conferences
Published in
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Surgery, December 2015
DOI 10.1111/ans.13393
Pubmed ID
26631323
Authors

Amanda Chung, Henry Woo

Abstract

Over recent years, Twitter has demonstrated an expanding role in scientific discussion, surgical news and conferences. This study evaluates the role of Twitter in urological conferences, with comparison to other surgical specialties. A retrospective analysis of Twitter metrics during the two largest recent English-speaking conferences for each surgical specialty was performed. Using www.symplur.com, all 'tweets' under the official conference hashtag from 0000 hour the first day to 24.00 hour the final day were assessed. The number of impressions, 'tweeters' and rates of 'tweeting' were analysed. Nine of 18 conferences examined had official hashtags registered with Symplur Healthcare Hashtags. Plastic and urological surgery had both major conferences registered. Only one of two conferences for each cardiothoracic, general, orthopaedic, otolaryngology and paediatric was registered. Both major neurosurgical and vascular conferences were unregistered. Urological conferences were associated with significantly more Twitter activity than non-urological surgical conferences in all parameters, with greater than triple the number of impressions, tweets and 'tweeters'. Urological surgical conferences were associated with 337% more tweets and 164% more impressions per conference day, than non-urological surgical conferences. Twitter has been used to supplement surgical conferences. In this regard, the urological community leads the way compared to the remainder of surgical specialty communities.

View on publisher site

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 54 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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 23%
Student > Master 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Other 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Other 9 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 35%
Unspecified 7 23%
Psychology 3 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Other 6 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 25 May 2017.
All research outputs
#445,031
of 12,386,191 outputs
Outputs from Australian & New Zealand Journal of Surgery
#9
of 2,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,293
of 329,780 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Australian & New Zealand Journal of Surgery
#3
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,386,191 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 2,002 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 329,780 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 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.