| Title |
Email for communicating results of diagnostic medical investigations to patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd007980.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Barbara Meyer, Helen Atherton, Prescilla Sawmynaden, Josip Car |
| Abstract |
As medical care becomes more complex and the ability to test for conditions grows, pressure on healthcare providers to convey increasing volumes of test results to patients is driving investigation of alternative technological solutions for their delivery. This review addresses the use of email for communicating results of diagnostic medical investigations to patients. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 115 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 22 | 18% |
| Researcher | 13 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 19 | 16% |
| Unknown | 35 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 30% |
| Psychology | 12 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Unknown | 42 | 35% |
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 27 September 2012.
All research outputs
#14,148,857
of 22,673,450 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,372
of 12,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,116
of 167,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#162
of 207 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,673,450 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,297 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 167,579 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 207 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.