Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30239646›Full record

ArticleDiseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus2019

A crosssectional analysis of Facebook comments to study public perception of a new diagnostic test called the Cytosponge.

W K Tan, B Muldrew, Z Khan, R C Fitzgerald

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

W K TanMRC Cancer Unit, University of Cambridge, London, UK.
B MuldrewBarts Clinical Trials Unit, Queen Mary University of London, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, London, UK.
Z KhanBarts Clinical Trials Unit, Queen Mary University of London, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, London, UK.
R C FitzgeraldMRC Cancer Unit, University of Cambridge, London, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_12022/2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Social media provides a useful platform for informal discussions about healthcare. Acceptability is key to the uptake of diagnostic devices and this can be difficult to gauge from questionnaires and qualitative studies. The aim of this study is to investigate whether Facebook could be used to gauge public perception toward uptake of a new diagnostic test for Barrett's esophagus called the Cytosponge. We retrospectively reviewed Facebook comments relating to a video on the Cytosponge. We categorized comments into: (1) Positive, (2) Negative, (3) Unknown and (4) Questions. Recurring themes that arose were compared to a qualitative study on the Cytosponge. The video received 22.5 million views and 2837 comments within four months. Of these, 525 comments were positive, 215 were unknown, 179 were negative, 71 were questions, and 1847 were 'Tagged' comments. Among positive comments, recurrent themes were that it was innovative, could lead to early cancer-detection, and more favorable than endoscopy. Among negative comments, a recurring theme was concern about the risk of gagging and vomiting. Among 'questions', a recurring theme was related to the risk of Cytosponge detachment. We compared our analysis to a published qualitative study and found similar themes arose across both studies. Facebook provides a rich source of qualitative data, which could be used to augment studies to gauge public perception toward a new diagnostic test.

Indexed as

Public OpinionBarrett EsophagusCross-Sectional StudiesDiagnostic Techniques, Digestive SystemFemaleHumansMalePerceptionQualitative ResearchSocial MediaVideo Recording

Identifiers

PMID30239646
PMCPMC7051844

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.