Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26757907›Full record

ReviewCurrent urology reports2016

Integrating Social Media into Urologic Health care: What Can We Learn from Other Disciplines?

Johannes Salem, Hendrik Borgmann, Declan G Murphy

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current urology reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. The use of Twitter to facilitate sharing of clinical expertise in urology.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2018
    Article
  8. Widespread use of internet, applications, and social media in the professional life of urology residents.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2017
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

3 authors.

Johannes SalemDepartment of Urology, St.-Josefs-Hospital Dortmund, Wilhelm-Schmidt-Str. 4, 44263, Dortmund, Germany. johannes.salem@gmail.com.
Hendrik BorgmannDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany. borgmann.hendrik@gmail.com.
Declan G MurphyDivision of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne, St Andrews Place, East, Melbourne, VIC, 3002, Australia. declan.murphy@petermac.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Social media (SoMe) have become an integral part in many aspects of personal and professional life. With current uptake rates of 50-70% among urologists, SoMe platforms merit huge potential for dissemination of information and professional exchange among stakeholders in urology. Application of SoMe includes conference conversations via tweet chats, health education via YouTube videos, and Twitter online journal clubs. In addition, a number of urology journals have embraced SoMe to allow rapid dissemination of their content and engagement with their readers. Guidance for the appropriate use of SoMe is provided to urologists by several organizations. Besides urology, other disciplines have adopted SoMe for a variety of areas: continuing professional development, awareness of rare diseases, recruitment of study participants, patient education and support, and publicizing research. Openness to new approaches is the basic prerequisite for a transfer of successful concepts embraced by other specialties, to the field of urology.

Indexed as

Kidney DiseasesSocial MediaDelivery of Health CareHumansFacebookNew mediaSocial mediaTwitterUrologyWeb 2.0

Identifiers

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.