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 |
Qualitative Twitter analysis of participants, tweet strategies, and tweet content at a major urologic conference
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Canadian Urological Association Journal, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.5489/cuaj.3322 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hendrik Borgmann, Jan-Henning Woelm, Axel Merseburger, Tim Nestler, Johannes Salem, Maximilian P. Brandt, Axel Haferkamp, Stacy Loeb |
| Abstract |
The microblogging social media platform Twitter is increasingly being adopted in the urologic field. We aimed to analyze participants, tweet strategies, and tweet content of the Twitter discussion at a urologic conference. A comprehensive analysis of the Twitter activity at the European Association of Urology Congress 2013 (#eau2013) was performed, including characteristics of user profiles, engagement and popularity measurements, characteristics and timing of tweets, and content analysis. Of 218 Twitter contributors, doctors (45%) were the most frequent, ahead of associations (15%), companies (10%), and journals (3%). However, journals had the highest tweet/participant rate (22 tweets/participant), profile activity (median: 1177, total tweets, 1805 followers, 979 following), and profile popularity (follower/following ratio: 2.1; retweet rank percentile: 96%). Links in a profile were associated with higher engagement (p<0.0001) and popularity (p<0.0001). Of 1572 tweets, 57% were original tweets, 71% contained mentions, 20% contained links, and 25% included pictures. The majority of tweets (88%) were during conference hours, with an average of 24.7 tweets/hour and a peak activity of 71 tweets/hour. Overall, 59% of tweets were informative, led by the topics uro-oncology (21%), urologic research (21%), and urotechnology (12%). Limitations include the analysis of a single conference analysis, assessment of global profile and not domain-specific activity, and the rapid evolution in Twitter-using habits. Results of this single conference qualitative analysis are promising for an enrichment of the scientific discussions at urologic conferences through the use of Twitter. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 36% |
| El Salvador | 1 | 9% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 5 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 55% |
| Members of the public | 4 | 36% |
| Scientists | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 69 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 10% |
| Other | 12 | 17% |
| Unknown | 11 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 14 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 19% |
| Computer Science | 11 | 16% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 6 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Unknown | 14 | 20% |