ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology
Tweet for the cure: A snapshot of Twitter usage by 3 U.S. oncologic professional societies.
Article in Advances in radiation oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reflections From the Annals of Surgical Oncology Social Media Committee: The Impact of Promoting Surgical Science Online.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Current Social Media Use Among Radiation Oncology Trainees.Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
- Characterizing Twitter Influencers in Radiation Oncology.Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMedical societies are incorporating Twitter to communicate with their members and connect with patients. This study compares the online presence of 3 major oncologic societies. METHODS AND MATERIALS: All available tweets in 2014 by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) were collected. We analyzed whether posts were original content or retweets. The monthly tweet rate was followed to assess trends. We created 2 new metrics, supporter ratio and tweet density, to correlate online presence and engagement with offline membership breadth. The supporter ratio is the number of people following the organization divided by the number of registered members of each society. The tweet density is the total number of posts divided by the number of registered members of each society.
resultsIn February 2015, ASCO, ASTRO, and SSO had 36,385; 10,899; and 2721 members, respectively. ASCO's Twitter handle had 33,974 followers, with a supporter ratio of 0.93. A total of 2563 original tweets and 1416 retweets were estimated, which represents a tweet density of 0.11. @ASTRO_org had 5445 followers and a supporter ratio of 0.50. In 2014, ASTRO posted 415 original content tweets and 9 retweets, with a tweet density of 0.039. SSO had a supporter ratio of 0.91 on the basis of 2481 followers. In 2014, SSO posted 207 original tweets and 190 retweets, with a tweet density of 0.15. An increase in tweets and retweets was seen during the month of each society's annual meeting. ASTRO's 61% increase in September 2014 was smaller than SSO's 462% and ASCO's 84%.
conclusionASTRO's use of Twitter lags behind ASCO and SSO. Although all 3 societies show increased Twitter use during their annual meetings, they should work toward more meaningful engagement throughout the year. The new metrics of tweet density and supporter ratio will serve as benchmarks for member engagement in future studies.
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.