↓ Skip to main content

Tweeting the Meeting: An In-Depth Analysis of Twitter Activity at Kidney Week 2011

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, July 2012
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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
5 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
105 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user
pinterest
1 Pinner

Citations

dimensions_citation
99 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
164 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Tweeting the Meeting: An In-Depth Analysis of Twitter Activity at Kidney Week 2011
Published in
PLOS ONE, July 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0040253
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tejas Desai, Afreen Shariff, Aabid Shariff, Mark Kats, Xiangming Fang, Cynthia Christiano, Maria Ferris

Abstract

In recent years, the American Society of Nephrology (ASN) has increased its efforts to use its annual conference to inform and educate the public about kidney disease. Social media, including Twitter, has been one method used by the Society to accomplish this goal. Twitter is a popular microblogging service that serves as a potent tool for disseminating information. It allows for short messages (140 characters) to be composed by any author and distributes those messages globally and quickly. The dissemination of information is necessary if Twitter is to be considered a tool that can increase public awareness of kidney disease. We hypothesized that content, citation, and sentiment analyses of tweets generated from Kidney Week 2011 would reveal a large number of educational tweets that were disseminated to the public. An ideal tweet for accomplishing this goal would include three key features: 1) informative content, 2) internal citations, and 3) positive sentiment score. Informative content was found in 29% of messages, greater than that found in a similarly sized medical conference (2011 ADA Conference, 16%). Informative tweets were more likely to be internally, rather than externally, cited (38% versus 22%, p<0.0001), thereby amplifying the original information to an even larger audience. Informative tweets had more negative sentiment scores than uninformative tweets (means -0.162 versus 0.199 respectively, p<0.0001), therefore amplifying a tweet whose content had a negative tone. Our investigation highlights significant areas of promise and improvement in using Twitter to disseminate medical information in nephrology from a scientific conference. This goal is pertinent to many nephrology-focused conferences that wish to increase public awareness of kidney disease.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 105 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 11 7%
United Kingdom 6 4%
Australia 2 1%
Italy 2 1%
Croatia 2 1%
Canada 2 1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Sri Lanka 1 <1%
Other 5 3%
Unknown 131 80%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 30 18%
Student > Master 25 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 12%
Other 16 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 7%
Other 50 30%
Unknown 11 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 42 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 36 22%
Social Sciences 36 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 2%
Other 23 14%
Unknown 18 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 98. 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 June 2019.
All research outputs
#420,430
of 24,950,117 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#5,931
of 216,180 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,919
of 169,272 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#81
of 3,972 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,950,117 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 216,180 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 169,272 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,972 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 97% of its contemporaries.