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 |
Benefits of a physician-facing tablet presentation of patient symptom data: comparing paper and electronic formats
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-13-99 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Daniel Glaser, Sanjula Jain, Philip Kortum |
| Abstract |
Providing patient information to physicians in usable form is of high importance. Electronic presentation of patient data may have benefits in efficiency and error rate reduction for these physician facing interfaces. Using a cancer symptom measurement tool (the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI)) we assessed the usability of patient data in its raw paper form and compared that to presentation on two electronic presentation formats of different sizes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 2 | 50% |
| India | 1 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 5% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Norway | 1 | 2% |
| Argentina | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 60 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 17% |
| Other | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 11 | 17% |
| Unknown | 9 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 23% |
| Unknown | 14 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 18 July 2014.
All research outputs
#13,662,605
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#964
of 2,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,430
of 199,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#22
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,027 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 199,922 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.