↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Mobile phone messaging for communicating results of medical investigations

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
403 Mendeley
Title
Mobile phone messaging for communicating results of medical investigations
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007456.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ipek Gurol‐Urganci, Thyra de Jongh, Vlasta Vodopivec‐Jamsek, Josip Car, Rifat Atun

Abstract

Mobile phone messaging, such as Short Message Service (SMS) and Multimedia Message Service (MMS), has rapidly grown into a mode of communication with a wide range of applications, including communicating the results from medical investigations to patients. Alternative modes of communication of results include face-to-face communication, postal messages, calls to landlines or mobile phones, through web-based health records and email. Possible advantages of mobile phone messaging include convenience to both patients and healthcare providers, reduced waiting times for health services and healthcare costs.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 403 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 10 2%
India 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Romania 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Unknown 384 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 72 18%
Researcher 54 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 52 13%
Student > Bachelor 33 8%
Student > Postgraduate 21 5%
Other 81 20%
Unknown 90 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 109 27%
Psychology 51 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 43 11%
Social Sciences 27 7%
Computer Science 26 6%
Other 49 12%
Unknown 98 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 10 August 2012.
All research outputs
#14,600,553
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,831
of 11,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,566
of 181,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#134
of 172 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 11,484 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.9. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 181,062 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 172 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.