ArticleWorld journal of urology2019
Following the crowd: patterns of crowdsourcing on Twitter among urologists.
Article in World journal of urology, 2019. 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.
- Marketing yourself in social media as a global health organization: lessons to be learned.World journal of urology · 2023Article
- Twitter-based crowdsourcing: What kind of measures can help to end the COVID-19 pandemic faster?Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo examine patterns of crowdsourcing on the social media platform Twitter among urologists.
methodsUrologists' public Twitter accounts were reviewed for original posts seeking clinical advice or feedback, and associated reply posts, before and after the 140-character-limit expansion in 2017. Predictors of responses to crowdsourcing requests were determined using multivariable regression. When patient data were posted, we noted whether consent was documented.
resultsA total of 276 posts in 23 crowdsourcing requests prior to character-limit expansion were analyzed. Reasons for crowdsourcing included requesting solutions to a clinical dilemma (82 posts, 30%); advice seeking about a surgical plan (77 posts, 28%); surveying colleagues' experiences with a new product (64 posts, 23%); and soliciting feedback about a proposed course of action (53 posts, 19%). Recent completion of training (as a proxy for inexperience) did not appear to disproportionately motivate crowdsourcing; authors' median time in practice was 7 years, and authors practicing for ≤ 7 years initiated 57% of requests. 22 (96%) crowdsourcing requests received ≥ 1 reply. Of 15 requests about a specific patient, eight included imaging, but only one cited patient consent. A second analysis of 184 posts in 17 crowdsourcing requests initiated after character-limit expansion demonstrated significantly more authors replying per request (P = 0.01), but no change in the frequency of patient-specific crowdsourcing or citation of consent.
conclusionsUrologists are leveraging Twitter for crowdsourcing clinical guidance and experiential knowledge. Nearly all requests were answered, suggesting low barriers to entry for novice users. Even after character-limit expansion, dissemination of potentially identifiable patient data remains a concern.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30014160What 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.