ArticleInternational journal of impotence research2018
The activity and discussion points of #Circumcision through Twitter; a microblogging platform.
Article in International journal of impotence research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neonatal Male Circumcision: Clearly Beneficial for Public Health or an Ethical Dilemma? A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2024Review
- Comments by opponents on the British Medical Association's guidance on non-therapeutic male circumcision of children seem one-sided and may undermine public health.World journal of clinical pediatrics · 2023Article
- Use of machine learning methods to understand discussions of female genital mutilation/cutting on social media.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
- Correlation between Twitter mentions and academic citations in sexual medicine journals.International journal of impotence research · 2022Review
- What drives people to repost social media messages during the COVID-19 pandemic? Evidence from the Weibo news microblog.Growth and change · 2021Article
- The Contrasting Evidence Concerning the Effect of Male Circumcision on Sexual Function, Sensation, and Pleasure: A Systematic Review.Sexual medicine · 2020Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesOur objective was to elucidate the discussion points of circumcision on social media (SoMe) by looking at the Twitter activity. MATERIAL AND
methodsTwitter searched for #circumcision hashtag via www.tweetarchivist.com , www.twitonomy.com , www.symplur.com . Total tweet numbers, most influencers, top users were documented. Tweets including female circumcision were excluded. The contents of the tweets were classified into four subgroups (medical, religious, social, and political) by two independent reviewers. All kinds of tweet activities were statistically analyzed.
resultsA total of 9795 users generated 15,989 tweets about circumcision in a 1 month period. Mean daily tweet activity was 532 for #circumcision. The content analysis revealed that 2224 (15.8%) medical, 1133 (8.0%) religious, 323 (2.2%) social and 10,470 (74.0%) political tweets have been sent out by the users. Contributors originated from 174 countries from 6 continents. Media organizations were accounted for 52% of the top 25 influencers in circumcision hashtag. The most common hashtags accompanying #circumcision were #HIV (4.9%), #babiesgotherpes (3.3%), #muslim (1.8%), #malegenitalmutilation (1.6%) respectively.
conclusionsThere is an increasing discussion about circumcision through SoMe . Our results provided that the discussion points are mostly driven by the media and the activists. The political tweets have been found to be the center of the discussion. SoMe usage should be increased by medical professionals for true information of the public.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30104670What 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.