Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26946250›Full record

SynthesisNutrition reviews2016

Effectiveness of social media in reducing risk factors for noncommunicable diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

George Mita, Cliona Ni Mhurchu, Andrew Jull

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nutrition reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

3 authors.

George MitaG. Mita is with the School of Population Health, University of Auckland, New Zealand. C. Ni Mhurchu is with the National Institute for Health Innovation, University of Auckland, New Zealand. A Jull is with the School of Nursing and National Institute for Health Innovation, University of Auckland, New Zealand. gmit015@aucklanduni.ac.nz.
Cliona Ni MhurchuG. Mita is with the School of Population Health, University of Auckland, New Zealand. C. Ni Mhurchu is with the National Institute for Health Innovation, University of Auckland, New Zealand. A Jull is with the School of Nursing and National Institute for Health Innovation, University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Andrew JullG. Mita is with the School of Population Health, University of Auckland, New Zealand. C. Ni Mhurchu is with the National Institute for Health Innovation, University of Auckland, New Zealand. A Jull is with the School of Nursing and National Institute for Health Innovation, University of Auckland, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe primary aim of the current study was to synthesize evidence of the effect of social media use compared with no social media use as part of interventions to reduce risk factors for noncommunicable diseases. DATA SOURCES: Databases were searched up to June 10, 2014, using medical subject headings. A secondary aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of social media use compared with no social media use in reducing the risk factors for noncommunicable diseases, stratifying the results by the extent of bias on outcomes, by social media use alone, and by the levels of social presence and media richness. STUDY SELECTION: Sixteen trials (n=10,711 participants) met the inclusion criteria, but interventions mostly used social media with low levels of media richness and presence (e.g., discussion boards, bulletin boards). DATA SYNTHESIS: Meta-analysis of all trials showed no significant differences (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.14; 95%CI -0.28 to 0.01), with similar findings for physical activity (SMD 0.07; 95%CI -0.25 to 0.38), body weight (SMD 0.07; 95%CI -0.17 to 0.20), and fruit and vegetable intake (SMD 0.39; 95%CI -0.11 to 0.89). Trials assessing social media interventions aimed at modifying risk factors for noncommunicable diseases showed that social media use improved the primary outcomes, but the overall quality of the included studies limits the generalizability of these findings.

conclusionFurther trials are warranted, especially to isolate the effect of social media use and to fully evaluate the effect of the social presence and media richness of social media platforms.

Indexed as

CommunicationPublic HealthSocial MediaFemaleHumansMaleRisk Factorsfruit and vegetable intakephysical activitysocial mediaweight change

Identifiers

PMID26946250
PMCPMC4892311

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.