↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Email for clinical communication between healthcare professionals

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 tweeters
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
Title
Email for clinical communication between healthcare professionals
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007979.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pappas Y, Atherton H, Sawmynaden P, Car J, Pappas, Yannis, Atherton, Helen, Sawmynaden, Prescilla, Car, Josip

Abstract

Email is a popular and commonly-used method of communication, but its use in healthcare is not routine. Where email communication has been utilised in health care, its purposes have included use for clinical communication between healthcare professionals, but the effects of using email in this way are not known. This review assesses the use of email for two-way clinical communication between healthcare professionals.

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.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
India 1 1%
Unknown 65 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 19%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 10 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 50%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Psychology 4 6%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 11 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 23 July 2013.
All research outputs
#1,877,403
of 15,956,599 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,547
of 11,346 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,947
of 134,282 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#25
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,956,599 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,346 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 134,282 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 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 71% of its contemporaries.