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 |
Insights into rare diseases from social media surveys
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13023-016-0532-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
William Davies |
| Abstract |
The internet, and social media platforms, are increasingly being used by substantial sectors of the worldwide population. By engaging effectively with online and social media, scientists and clinicians can obtain unprecedented access to relatively large cohorts of individuals with rare diseases, as well as their relatives, carers and professionals involved in their healthcare. Online surveys of these stakeholder groups may provide important new insights into rare conditions and their management relatively quickly and easily, with the possibility of rapid translation into healthcare interventions and policy. Here, I describe our recent positive experience with the online survey approach to a rare disease (X-linked ichthyosis), and review its advantages and limitations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 | 4 | 36% |
| United States | 1 | 9% |
| India | 1 | 9% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 9% |
| Mexico | 1 | 9% |
| Canada | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 2 | 18% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 91% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 61 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Researcher | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 20 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 11% |
| Psychology | 5 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 16% |
| Unknown | 19 | 31% |
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 08 November 2017.
All research outputs
#3,670,007
of 22,901,818 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#476
of 2,630 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,015
of 313,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#6
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,901,818 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,630 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 313,012 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.