Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28100506›Full record

ArticleEvidence-based mental health2017

Twittering on about mental health: is it worth the effort?

Mahesh Jayaram, Lindsay Moran, Clive Adams

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evidence-based mental health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Mahesh JayaramMelbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre, Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5352-1075
Lindsay MoranDepartment of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Clive AdamsInstitute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The medical community disseminates information increasingly using social media. Randomised controlled trials are being conducted in this area to evaluate effectiveness of social media with mixed results so far, but more trials are likely to be published in the coming years. One recent twitter randomised control trial using Cochrane Schizophrenia Group reviews suggests that tweets increase the hits to the target web page by about threefold and time spent on the web page is also increased threefold when referrals come in via twitter. These are early findings and need further replication. Twitter appeals to professionals, entertainers and politicians among others as a means of networking with peers and connecting with the wider public. Twitter, in particular, seems to be well placed for use by the medical community and is effective in promoting messages, updating information, interacting with each other locally and internationally and more so during conferences. Twitter is also increasingly used to disseminate evidence in addition to traditional media such as academic peer-reviewed journals. Caution is required using twitter as inadvertent tweets can lead to censure. Overall, the use of twitter responsibly by the medical community will increase visibility of research findings and ensure up to date evidence is readily accessible. This should open the door for further trials of different social media platforms to evaluate their effectiveness in disseminating accurate high-quality information instantaneously to a global audience.

Indexed as

Information DisseminationMental HealthSocial MediaHumans

Identifiers

PMID28100506
PMCPMC10688418

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.