SynthesisCurrent cardiology reviews2021
Social Media in Heart Failure: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Current cardiology reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital Solutions in HF Education: What Can Patients and Clinicians Gain?Current heart failure reports · 2026Review
- Evaluating the reliability of YouTube videos as an educational source on heart failure.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026Article
- Social movements and social media: the evolution of scholarship in the age of datafication.Humanities & social sciences communications · 2026Review
- Social Networks as a Tool for Evidence-Based Health Education: Umbrella Review.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2024Review
- Evaluating YouTube as a Good Resource for Enhancing Patient Understanding of Heart Failure.Cureus · 2024Article
- Factors affecting the willingness of nursing care staffs for cooperation with heart failure care and the role of internet video education.Journal of general and family medicine · 2024Article
- Barriers and facilitators of the uptake of digital health technology in cardiovascular care: a systematic scoping review.European heart journal. Digital health · 2021Article
- Social Media for Cardiovascular Medicine: Real Reflections from Virtual Medium.Current cardiology reviews · 2021Article
- A Conceptual Model to Improve Care for Individuals with Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias and Their Caregivers: Qualitative Findings in an Online Caregiver Forum.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2021Article
- Diabetes-Related Topics in an Online Forum for Caregivers of Individuals Living With Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias: Qualitative Inquiry.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Physician-initiated Research in Social Media. An Area That Can No Longer Be Ignored.ATS scholar · 2020Article
- Impact of Social Media and Virtual Learning on Cardiology During the COVID-19 Pandemic Era and Beyond.Methodist DeBakey cardiovascular journalReview
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
backgroundAmong social media (SoMe) platforms, Twitter and YouTube have gained popularity, facilitating communication between cardiovascular professionals and patients.
objectiveThis mixed-methods systematic review aimed to assess the source profile and content of Twitter and YouTube posts about heart failure (HF).
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase and Medline using the terms "cardiology," "social media," and "heart failure". We included full-text manuscripts published between January 1, 1999, and April 14, 2019. We searched Twitter and YouTube for posts using the hashtags "#heartfailure", "#HF", or "#CHF" on May 15, 2019 and July 6, 2019. We performed a descriptive analysis of the data.
resultsThree publications met inclusion criteria, providing 677 tweets for source profile analysis; institutions (54.8%), health professionals (26.6%), and patients (19.4%) were the most common source profiles. The publications provided 1,194 tweets for content analysis: 83.3% were on education for professionals; 33.7% were on patient empowerment; and 22.3% were on research promotion. Our search on Twitter and YouTube generated 2,252 tweets and > 400 videos, of which we analyzed 260 tweets and 260 videos. Sources included institutions (53.5% Twitter, 64.2% You- Tube), health professionals (42.3%, 28.5%), and patients (4.2%, 7.3%). Content included education for professionals (39.2% Twitter, 62.3% YouTube), patient empowerment (20.4%, 21.9%), research promotion (28.8%, 13.1%), professional advocacy (5.8%, 2.7%), and research collaboration (5.8%, 0%).
conclusionTwitter and YouTube are platforms for knowledge translation in HF, with contributions from institutions, health professionals, and less commonly, from patients. Both focus largely on education for professionals and less commonly on patient empowerment. Twitter includes more research promotion, research collaboration, and professional advocacy than YouTube.
Indexed as
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.