ArticleWorld journal of urology2018
Substantial utilization of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram in the prostate cancer community.
Article in World journal of urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Prostate cancer research on social media platforms: a bibliometric and thematic analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Qualitative studies on men with prostate cancer: a systematic meta-synthesis.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2025Pooled it
- Prostate Cancer: Community Education and Disparities in Diagnosis and Treatment.The oncologist · 2021Pooled it
- Association of online health information exposure with disease awareness initial symptom severity in benign prostatic hyperplasia: a cross-sectional study.The Canadian journal of urology · 2026Article
- Implementing Instagram as educational tool for teaching hematology and medical oncology - a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Reinforcement Learning-Based Digital Therapeutic Intervention for Postprostatectomy Incontinence: Development and Pilot Feasibility Study.JMIR cancer · 2026Article
- A Social Media Campaign and Web-Based Survey About Prostate Cancer Genetics: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR cancer · 2025Article
- Japanese Perception of Brain Death and Implications for New Medical Technologies: Quantitative and Qualitative Social Media Analysis.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Codesign and Launch of 'On the Ball': An Inclusive Community-Based 'Testicular Awareness' Campaign.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the Quality and Comprehensiveness of YouTube Videos Discussing Pancreatic Cancer.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2023Article
- Overview and characterization of penile cancer content across social media platforms.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- [Acceptance and status of digitalization in clinics and practices : Current assessment in German urology].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2022Article
- New Data Resources, Linkages, and Infrastructure for Cancer Health Economics Research: Main Topics From a Panel Discussion.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2022Article
- Oncofertility and Fertility Preservation in Cancer Patients Across the Twitterverse.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Observational
- Using Instagram to Enhance a Hematology and Oncology Teaching Module During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-sectional Study.JMIR medical education · 2021Article
- Re-evaluating standards of human subjects protection for sensitive health data in social media networks.Social networks · 2021Article
- Article
- Does YouTube include high-quality resources for training on laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy?World journal of urology · 2020Article
- [Internet use after prostate cancer : Search for information and trust in disease-related information in long-term survivors].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2019Article
- Using Facebook for Qualitative Research: A Brief Primer.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo measure the usage rate of social media (SoMe) resources in the prostate cancer community, we performed a comprehensive quantitative and qualitative assessment of SoMe activity on the topic of PCa on the four most frequented platforms.
methodsWe scanned the SoMe platforms Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram for "prostate cancer" as a cross-sectional analysis or during a defined time period. Sources were included if their communication centered on PCa by title and content. We assessed activity measurements for each SoMe source and classified the sources into six functional categories.
resultsWe identified 99 PCa-related Facebook groups that amassed 31,262 members and 90 Facebook pages with 283,996 "likes". On YouTube, we found 536 PCa videos accounting for 43,966,634 views, 52,655 likes, 8597 dislikes, and 12,393 comments. During a 1-year time period, 32,537 users generated 110,971 tweets on #ProstateCancer on Twitter, providing over 544 million impressions. During a 1-month time period, 638 contributors posted 1081 posts on Instagram, generating over 22,000 likes and 4,748,159 impressions. Among six functional categories, general information/support dominated the SoMe landscape on all SoMe platforms.
conclusionSoMe activity on the topic of PCa on the four most frequented platforms is high. Facebook groups, YouTube videos, and Twitter tweets are mainly used for giving general information on PCa and education. High SoMe utilization in the PCa community underlines its future role for communication of PCa.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29523948What 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.