ArticleESMO open2020
European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2018 Congress Twitter analysis: from ethics to results through the understanding of communication and interaction flows.
Article in ESMO open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Netiquette for social media engagement for oncology professionals.Future oncology (London, England) · 2022Review
- Evolving Communication with Healthcare Professionals in the Pharmaceutical Space: Current Trends and Future Perspectives.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTwitter is a microblogging service providing a platform for social networking. For medical information, Twitter is an interesting channel for sharing and spreading information and as an engagement platform for different stakeholders. Benefits and caveats of uncontrolled medical information must be carefully pondered, considering the possible intended and unintended adverse outcomes of uncontrolled influencing. The aim of this study was to describe the non-commercial content shared on Twitter and to analyse the level of influence of commercial tweeters during the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2018 annual meeting held in Munich. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY: A retrospective analysis of the tweets shared in the period 19-23 October 2018 indexed with the hashtag #ESMO18 or #ESMO2018 was performed; methodology of systematic reviews was mirrored. Commercial tweeters (pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, device manufacturers and spam tweeters) were excluded from the primary analysis, and only non-commercial tweets from and about the congress were included. Tweets were analysed using a network analytical tool (NodeXL).
resultsA total of 7100 tweets posted by 1334 tweeters were identified for the period of interest. Less than 10% of tweeters were identified as commercial, posting 15.7% of tweets and receiving almost one-quarter of retweets. However, pharmaceutical and biotech tweeters were substantially less likely to be mentioned by other tweeters. All of the top 10 retweeters of non-commercial content were clinicians and/or professional organisations, in stark contrast with the commercial content.
conclusionsThe use of social networks in medical meetings, including oncology, is increasing for real-time communication and informed opinion-making. The uncontrolled spread of information on Twitter can both stimulate discussions on non-official and non-canonical channels of communication and provide uncontrolled influencing of diverse stakeholders. The disclosure of financial declarations of interest on Twitter could enhance the transparency of the information, as is already happening in medical journals.
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.