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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Strategy of robotic surgeons to exert public influence through Twitter
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1002/rcs.1739 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hendrik Borgmann, Jan Woelm, Karen Nelson, Kilian Gust, Rene Mager, Michael Reiter, David Schilling, Georg Bartsch, Roman Blaheta, Axel Haferkamp, Igor Tsaur |
| Abstract |
Twitter is gaining growing popularity as a communication platform and potential tool to influence the public in medical matters. The aim here is to examine whether and how robotic surgeons use Twitter more influentially than other urologists. Robotic surgeons and other urologists that tweeted at the European urology congress were compared by assessing Twitter Follower/Following Ratio, Retweet Rank and Percentile and their Twitter strategies. Robotic surgeons had a significantly higher Twitter Follower/Following Ratio (2.1, 1.4-2.4) and Retweet Rank percentile (92.1%, 90.5-93%) than other urologists (1.2, 0.8-2.1 and 88.9%, 87.3-91.7%, respectively). Robotic surgeons used original tweet content and links more often than other urologists (69.4% vs 53.8%, and 19.8% vs 12.5%, respectively). Robotic surgeons had a higher public influence on Twitter than other urologists and posted original tweets and links in tweets and profiles more frequently. This strategy might optimize Twitter use by healthcare professionals in the future. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 7 | 39% |
| Spain | 4 | 22% |
| Kuwait | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 61% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 22% |
| Scientists | 2 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 25 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 16% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 12% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 16% |
| Unknown | 4 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 56% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 29 September 2017.
All research outputs
#3,972,244
of 24,904,819 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery
#21
of 369 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,548
of 304,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,904,819 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 369 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 304,591 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them