Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28663265›Full record

ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2017

Maximizing the Tweet Engagement Rate in Academia: Analysis of the AJNR Twitter Feed.

V Wadhwa, E Latimer, K Chatterjee, J McCarty, R T Fitzgerald

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Public Engagement with Science via Social Media: A Case of Communicating the Pandemic on Twitter.Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology. Association for Information Science and Technology · 2021
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Publicly Available Metrics UnderestimateAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2019
    Article
  16. 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

5 authors.

V WadhwaFrom the Departments of Radiology (V.W., E.L., R.T.F.) vibhorwadhwa90@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2443-0219
E LatimerFrom the Departments of Radiology (V.W., E.L., R.T.F.).ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4121-2427
K ChatterjeeInternal Medicine (K.C.), University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3873-2720
J McCartyDepartment of Radiology and Imaging Sciences (J.M.), Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9533-6524
R T FitzgeraldFrom the Departments of Radiology (V.W., E.L., R.T.F.).ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3325-6662

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of social media by medical professionals and organizations is increasing, with Twitter receiving the most attention. User engagement is an important goal of social media activity, and engagement metrics represent a viable gauge of value in social media. No thorough analysis of tweet characteristics that increase academic user engagement has yet been published. In this study, the authors analyzed the

Indexed as

NeurologyRadiologySocial MediaHumans

Identifiers

PMID28663265
PMCPMC7963637

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.