Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22759618›Full record

ReviewJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA

Reviewing social media use by clinicians.

Marcio von Muhlen, Lucila Ohno-Machado

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 100 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
100citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

100 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Medical wikis dedicated to clinical practice: a systematic review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2015
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

40 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Marcio von MuhlenDivision of Biomedical Informatics, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093 0728, USA.
Lucila Ohno-Machado

Funding

iDASH: Integrating Data for Analysis, Anonymization, and SharingU54HL108460 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI OHNO-MACHADO, LUCILA · 2010 to 2015
$19.1M
Global Health Knowledge Collective: A Collaborative Toolkit for Global HealthR24TW008805 · FIC · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI OHNO-MACHADO, LUCILA · 2010 to 2010
$248k
FIC NIH HHS R24 TW008805FIC NIH HHS R24TW008805NHLBI NIH HHS U54 HL108460NHLBI NIH HHS U54HL108460
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Adoption studies of social media use by clinicians were systematically reviewed, up to July 26th, 2011, to determine the extent of adoption and highlight trends in institutional responses. This search led to 370 articles, of which 50 were selected for review, including 15 adoption surveys. The definition of social media is evolving rapidly; the authors define it broadly to include social networks and group-curated reference sites such as Wikipedia. Facebook accounts are very common among health science students (64-96%) and less so for professional clinicians (13-47%). Adoption rates have increased sharply in the past 4 years. Wikipedia is widely used as a reference tool. Attempts at incorporating social media into clinical training have met with mixed success. Posting of unprofessional content and breaches of patient confidentiality, especially by students, are not uncommon and have prompted calls for social media guidelines.

Indexed as

Diffusion of InnovationEducation, ProfessionalPractice Patterns, Physicians'AdolescentAdultConfidentialityHumansInternetPhysician-Patient RelationsProfessional MisconductSocial MediaStudents, MedicalStudents, Pharmacy

Identifiers

PMID22759618
PMCPMC3422846

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.