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 |
Outpatient Tinnitus Clinic, Self-Help Web Platform, or Mobile Application to Recruit Tinnitus Study Samples?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnagi.2017.00113 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas Probst, Rüdiger C. Pryss, Berthold Langguth, Myra Spiliopoulou, Michael Landgrebe, Markku Vesala, Stephen Harrison, Johannes Schobel, Manfred Reichert, Michael Stach, Winfried Schlee |
| Abstract |
For understanding the heterogeneity of tinnitus, large samples are required. However, investigations on how samples recruited by different methods differ from each other are lacking. In the present study, three large samples each recruited by different means were compared: N = 5017 individuals registered at a self-help web platform for tinnitus (crowdsourcing platform Tinnitus Talk), N = 867 users of a smart mobile application for tinnitus (crowdsensing platform TrackYourTinnitus), and N = 3786 patients contacting an outpatient tinnitus clinic (Tinnitus Center of the University Hospital Regensburg). The three samples were compared regarding age, gender, and duration of tinnitus (month or years perceiving tinnitus; subjective report) using chi-squared tests. The three samples significantly differed from each other in age, gender and tinnitus duration (p < 0.05). Users of the TrackYourTinnitus crowdsensing platform were younger, users of the Tinnitus Talk crowdsourcing platform had more often female gender, and users of both newer technologies (crowdsourcing and crowdsensing) had more frequently acute/subacute tinnitus (<3 months and 4-6 months) as well as a very long tinnitus duration (>20 years). The implications of these findings for clinical research are that newer technologies such as crowdsourcing and crowdsensing platforms offer the possibility to reach individuals hard to get in contact with at an outpatient tinnitus clinic. Depending on the aims and the inclusion/exclusion criteria of a given study, different recruiting strategies (clinic and/or newer technologies) offer different advantages and disadvantages. In general, the representativeness of study results might be increased when tinnitus study samples are recruited in the clinic as well as via crowdsourcing and crowdsensing. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 Kingdom | 3 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 11% |
| Brazil | 1 | 11% |
| Spain | 1 | 11% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 11% |
| Germany | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 1 | 11% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 89% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 17% |
| Unknown | 8 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 4 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 11% |
| Psychology | 3 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 19% |
| Unknown | 11 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 20 May 2017.
All research outputs
#1,576,421
of 22,965,074 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#391
of 4,833 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,733
of 309,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#21
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,965,074 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,833 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 309,877 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.