Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26920122›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2016

Garbage in, Garbage Out: Data Collection, Quality Assessment and Reporting Standards for Social Media Data Use in Health Research, Infodemiology and Digital Disease Detection.

Yoonsang Kim, Jidong Huang, Sherry Emery

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 76 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
76citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

76 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. AI for Tobacco Control: Identifying Tobacco-Promoting Social Media Content Using Large Language Models.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. ChatGPT for Automated Qualitative Research: Content Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Examining the Peer-Reviewed Literature on Tobacco-Related Social Media Data: Scoping Review.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Yoonsang KimHealth Media Collaboratory, Institute for Health Research and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States. ykim96@uic.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1685-1753

Funding

UPENN TCORS: Tobacco Product Messaging in a Complex Communication EnvironmentP50CA179546 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI HORNIK, ROBERT C. · 2013 to 2017
$18.7M
Tobacco Control in a Rapidly Changing Media EnvironmentU01CA154254 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI EMERY, SHERRY L · 2011 to 2015
$7.7M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA179546NCI NIH HHS P50CA179546NCI NIH HHS U01 CA154254NCI NIH HHS U01CA154254
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial media have transformed the communications landscape. People increasingly obtain news and health information online and via social media. Social media platforms also serve as novel sources of rich observational data for health research (including infodemiology, infoveillance, and digital disease detection detection). While the number of studies using social data is growing rapidly, very few of these studies transparently outline their methods for collecting, filtering, and reporting those data. Keywords and search filters applied to social data form the lens through which researchers may observe what and how people communicate about a given topic. Without a properly focused lens, research conclusions may be biased or misleading. Standards of reporting data sources and quality are needed so that data scientists and consumers of social media research can evaluate and compare methods and findings across studies.

objectiveWe aimed to develop and apply a framework of social media data collection and quality assessment and to propose a reporting standard, which researchers and reviewers may use to evaluate and compare the quality of social data across studies.

methodsWe propose a conceptual framework consisting of three major steps in collecting social media data: develop, apply, and validate search filters. This framework is based on two criteria: retrieval precision (how much of retrieved data is relevant) and retrieval recall (how much of the relevant data is retrieved). We then discuss two conditions that estimation of retrieval precision and recall rely on--accurate human coding and full data collection--and how to calculate these statistics in cases that deviate from the two ideal conditions. We then apply the framework on a real-world example using approximately 4 million tobacco-related tweets collected from the Twitter firehose.

resultsWe developed and applied a search filter to retrieve e-cigarette-related tweets from the archive based on three keyword categories: devices, brands, and behavior. The search filter retrieved 82,205 e-cigarette-related tweets from the archive and was validated. Retrieval precision was calculated above 95% in all cases. Retrieval recall was 86% assuming ideal conditions (no human coding errors and full data collection), 75% when unretrieved messages could not be archived, 86% assuming no false negative errors by coders, and 93% allowing both false negative and false positive errors by human coders.

conclusionsThis paper sets forth a conceptual framework for the filtering and quality evaluation of social data that addresses several common challenges and moves toward establishing a standard of reporting social data. Researchers should clearly delineate data sources, how data were accessed and collected, and the search filter building process and how retrieval precision and recall were calculated. The proposed framework can be adapted to other public social media platforms.

Indexed as

Data CollectionDisease OutbreaksHumansInternetQuality Assurance, Health CareSearch EngineSocial Mediadigital disease detectioninfodemiologyinfoveillanceprecision and recallsearch filtersensitivity and specificitysocial mediastandard reportingTwitter

Identifiers

PMID26920122
PMCPMC4788740

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.