Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32844753›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2020

Insights From Twitter Conversations on Lupus and Reproductive Health: Protocol for a Content Analysis.

Oleg Stens, Michael H Weisman, Julia Simard, Katja Reuter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Contraceptive content shared on social media: an analysis of Twitter.Contraception and reproductive medicine · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Oleg StensDepartment of Internal Medicine, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0805-1422
Michael H WeismanDavid Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5568-388X
Julia Simard *Division of Epidemiology, Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5735-9856
Katja Reuter *Institute for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Research, Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1559-9058

Funding

Southern California Clinical and Translational Science InstituteUL1TR000130 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI BUCHANAN, THOMAS A · 2012 to 2015
$36.0M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000130
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSystemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is the most common form of lupus. It is a chronic autoimmune disease that predominantly affects women of reproductive age, impacting contraception, fertility, and pregnancy. Although clinic-based studies have contributed to an increased understanding of reproductive health care needs of patients with SLE, misinformation abounds and perspectives on reproductive health issues among patients with lupus remain poorly understood. Social networks such as Twitter may serve as a data source for exploring how lupus patients communicate about their health issues, thus adding a dimension to enrich our understanding of communication regarding reproductive health in this unique patient population.

objectiveThe objective of this study is to conduct a content analysis of Twitter data published by users in English in the United States from September 1, 2017, to October 31, 2018, in order to examine people's perspectives on reproductive health among patients with lupus.

methodsThis study will analyze user-generated posts that include keywords related to lupus and reproductive health from Twitter. To access public Twitter user data, we will use Symplur Signals, a health care social media analytics platform. Text classifiers will be used to identify topics in posts. Posts will be classified manually into the a priori and emergent categories. Based on the information available in a user's Twitter profile (ie, username, description, and profile image), we will further attempt to characterize the user who generated the post. We will use descriptive statistics to analyze the data and identify the most prevalent topics in the Twitter content among patients with lupus.

resultsThis study has been funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) through their Clinical and Translational Science Awards program. The Institutional Review Board at the University of Southern California approved the study (HS-18-00912). Data extraction and cleaning are complete. We obtained 47,715 Twitter posts containing terms related to "lupus" from users in the United States, published in English between September 1, 2017, and October 31, 2018. We will include 40,885 posts in the analysis, which will be completed in fall 2020. This study was supported by funds from the has been funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) through their Clinical and Translational Science Awards program.

conclusionsThe findings from this study will provide pilot data on the use of Twitter among patients with lupus. Our findings will shed light on whether Twitter is a promising data source for learning about reproductive health issues expressed among patients with lupus. The data will also help to determine whether Twitter can serve as a potential outreach platform for raising awareness of lupus and reproductive health and for implementing relevant health interventions. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/15623.

Indexed as

fertilityinfodemiologyinfoveillancelisteninglupusmonitoringpatient opinionreproductive healthsocial mediasocial networksurveillanceTwitter

Identifiers

PMID32844753
PMCPMC7481870

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.