ArticleBMC nephrology2017
Internet and social network users' profiles in Renal Transplant Recipients in France.
Article in BMC nephrology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Information needs of kidney transplant patients on social media: a qualitative study.BMC nephrology · 2025Article
- Social media as a source of information for patients with knee osteoarthritis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Advancing orthopaedic trauma care through WhatsApp: An analysis of clinical and non-clinical applications, challenges, and future directions.World journal of orthopedics · 2024Review
- Multifaceted Role of Social Media in Healthcare: Opportunities, Challenges, and the Need for Quality Control.Cureus · 2023Review
- Use of eHealth by Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: Observational, Cross-sectional, Multicenter Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of the Internet for searching and sharing health information and for health care interactions may have a great potential for Renal Transplant Recipients (RTR). This study aims to determine the characteristics associated with Internet and social network use in a representative sample of RTR at the time of their inclusion in the study.
methodsData of this cross-sectional design is retrieved from a longitudinal study conducted in five French kidney transplant centers in 2011, and included Renal Transplant Recipients aged 18 years with a functioning graft for at least 1 year. Measures include demographic characteristics (age, gender, level of education, employment status, living arrangement, having children, invalidity and monthly incomes in the household), psycho-social characteristics measured by the perceived social support questionnaire, and medical characteristics (previous dialysis treatment, duration since transplantation, graft rejection episodes, chronic graft dysfunction, health status and comorbidities: neoplasia for the current transplant, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, smoking status, BMI > 30 kg/m
resultsAmong the 1416 RTR participating in the study, 20.1% had no Internet access in the household, 29.4% connected to social networks and 50.5% were not connected to social networks. Patients who connected the most to the Internet and social networks were younger, male, without children, employed, with high monthly incomes in the household, without hypertension and having felt a need for an informative or an esteem support.
conclusionIn our study, the majority of RTR were actively using Internet and social networks. Renal transplant units should develop flexible and Web-based sources related to transplant information, which will allow a rapid adaptation to changes in prevalent practice, improve the health of the patients and reflect their preferences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.