Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26590917›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of urology2016

The state and potential of social media in bladder cancer.

Michael J Leveridge

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of urology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Questioning reliability assessments of health information on social media.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2017
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Cancer misinformation on social media.CA: a cancer journal for clinicians
    Review
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

1 author.

Michael J LeveridgeDepartments of Urology and Oncology, Kingston General Hospital, Queen's University, 76 Stuart Street, Kingston, ON, K7L 2V7, Canada. leveridm@kgh.kari.net.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSocial media sites and services have become intimately woven into our interpersonal communications and have begun to stake a visible place in healthcare. Disease-specific Twitter hashtags, online patient groups and participation by patients, practitioners and advocacy groups are emblematic of this new paradigm.

methodsA literature review and summary of resources and publications on bladder cancer and social media.

resultsA majority of Western patients have access to and use the Internet for health information. Urologists and oncologists have used bladder-cancer-specific messaging at international meetings infrequently as compared to prostate and other non-urologic cancers. An active community does participate in online discussion, with differences between medical practitioners and patients/advocates. Advice is given with the aim of unifying this discussion.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Transitional CellInformation DisseminationSocial MediaUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsUrologyHumansInternetBladder cancerOncologyOnline patient communitySocial mediaTwitter

Identifiers

PMID26590917

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.