Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32628113›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2020

The Use of Social Media to Increase the Impact of Health Research: Systematic Review.

Marco Bardus, Rola El Rassi, Mohamad Chahrour, Elie W Akl, Abdul Sattar Raslan, Lokman I Meho, Elie A Akl

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Maximizing the Impact of Your Academic Scholarship: Strategies for Early Career Professionals.Academic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Marco BardusDepartment of Health Promotion and Community Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.ORCID 0000-0002-0707-7196
Rola El RassiClinical Research Institute, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.ORCID 0000-0002-7388-8712
Mohamad ChahrourDepartment of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon.ORCID 0000-0002-8088-9801
Elie W AklDepartment of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon.ORCID 0000-0001-6556-1878
Abdul Sattar RaslanDepartment of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon.ORCID 0000-0001-8311-9100
Lokman I MehoUniversity Libraries, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.ORCID 0000-0003-0623-4652
Elie A AklDepartment of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon.ORCID 0000-0002-3444-8618

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAcademics in all disciplines increasingly use social media to share their publications on the internet, reaching out to different audiences. In the last few years, specific indicators of social media impact have been developed (eg, Altmetrics), to complement traditional bibliometric indicators (eg, citation count and h-index). In health research, it is unclear whether social media impact also translates into research impact.

objectiveThe primary aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the impact of using social media on the dissemination of health research. The secondary aim was to assess the correlation between Altmetrics and traditional citation-based metrics.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review to identify studies that evaluated the use of social media to disseminate research published in health-related journals. We specifically looked at studies that described experimental or correlational studies linking the use of social media with outcomes related to bibliometrics. We searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases using a predefined search strategy (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: CRD42017057709). We conducted independent and duplicate study selection and data extraction. Given the heterogeneity of the included studies, we summarized the findings through a narrative synthesis.

resultsOf a total of 18,624 retrieved citations, we included 51 studies: 7 (14%) impact studies (answering the primary aim) and 44 (86%) correlational studies (answering the secondary aim). Impact studies reported mixed results with several limitations, including the use of interventions of inappropriately low intensity and short duration. The majority of correlational studies suggested a positive association between traditional bibliometrics and social media metrics (eg, number of mentions) in health research.

conclusionsWe have identified suggestive yet inconclusive evidence on the impact of using social media to increase the number of citations in health research. Further studies with better design are needed to assess the causal link between social media impact and bibliometrics.

Indexed as

BibliometricsBiomedical ResearchHumansMEDLARSSocial MediaAltmetricsbibliometricsjournal impact factorresearchsocial mediatranslational medical research

Identifiers

PMID32628113
PMCPMC7380994

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.