Trial reportBMJ open2015
To tweet or not to tweet about schizophrenia systematic reviews (TweetSz): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Day of the week to tweet: a randomised controlled trial.BMJ open · 2019Trial
- Tweeting links to Cochrane Schizophrenia Group reviews: a randomised controlled trial.BMJ open · 2016Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Cochrane Schizophrenia Group (CSzG) has produced and maintained systematic reviews of effects of interventions for schizophrenia and related illness. Each review has a Plain Language Summary (PLS), for those without specialised knowledge, and an abstract, which are freely available from The Cochrane Library (https://summaries.cochrane.org). Increasingly, evidence is being distributed using social media such as Twitter and Weibo (in China) alongside traditional publications. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In a prospective two-arm, parallel, open randomised controlled trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio, we will allocate 170 published systematic reviews into the intervention group (tweeting arm/Weibo arm) versus the control group (non-tweeting arm). Reviews will be stratified by baseline access activity, defined as high (≥19 views per week, n=14), medium (4.3 to 18.99 views per week, n=72) or low (<4.3 views per week, n=84), based on Google Analytics, which will also be used for evaluating outcomes. The intervention group will have three tweets daily using Hootsuite with a slightly different accompanying text (written by CEA and AB) and a shortened Uniform Resource Locator (URL) to the PLS: a) The review title as it appears in summaries.cochrane.org, b) A pertinent extract from results or discussion sections of the abstract and c) An intriguing question or pithy statement related to the evidence in the abstract. The primary outcome will be: total number of visits to a PLS in 7 days following the tweet. Secondary outcomes will include % new visits, bounce rate, pages per visit, visit duration, page views, unique page views, time on page, entrances, exiting behaviour and country distribution. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study does not involve living participants, and uses information available in the public domain. Participants are published systematic reviews, hence, no ethical approval is required. Dissemination will be via Twitter, Weibo and traditional academic means. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN84658943.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.