Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33030435›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2020

Brain Tumor Discussions on Twitter (#BTSM): Social Network Analysis.

Josemari T Feliciano, Liz Salmi, Charlie Blotner, Adam Hayden, Edjah K Nduom, Bethany M Kwan, Matthew S Katz, Elizabeth B Claus

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors.

Josemari T FelicianoDepartment of Biostatistics, Yale University School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2107-0687
Liz SalmiOpenNotes, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3798-7438
Charlie BlotnerSocial Work Hospice Care Team, Evergreen Health Medical Center, Kirkland, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5926-4209
Adam HaydenDepartment of Philosophy, Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1574-7230
Edjah K NduomSurgical Neurology Branch, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9882-0899
Bethany M KwanDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4013-5618
Matthew S KatzDepartment of Radiation Medicine, Lowell General Hospital, Lowell, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-0239-9807
Elizabeth B ClausDepartment of Biostatistics, Yale University School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4430-2049

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Brain Tumor Social Media (#BTSM) Twitter hashtag was founded in February 2012 as a disease-specific hashtag for patients with brain tumor.

objectiveTo understand #BTSM's role as a patient support system, we describe user descriptors, growth, interaction, and content sharing.

methodsWe analyzed all tweets containing #BTSM from 2012 to 2018 using the Symplur Signals platform to obtain data and to describe Symplur-defined user categories, tweet content, and trends in use over time. We created a network plot with all publicly available retweets involving #BTSM in 2018 to visualize key stakeholders and their connections to other users.

resultsFrom 2012 to 2018, 59,764 unique users participated in #BTSM, amassing 298,904 tweets. The yearly volume of #BTSM tweets increased by 264.57% from 16,394 in 2012 to 43,373 in 2018 with #BTSM constantly trending in the top 15 list of disease hashtags, as well the top 15 list of tweet chats. Patient advocates generated the most #BTSM tweets (33.13%), while advocacy groups, caregivers, doctors, and researchers generated 7.01%, 4.63%, 3.86%, and 3.37%, respectively. Physician use, although still low, has increased over time. The 2018 network plot of retweets including #BTSM identifies a number of key stakeholders from the patient advocate, patient organization, and medical researcher domains and reveals the extent of their reach to other users.

conclusionsFrom its start in 2012, #BTSM has grown exponentially over time. We believe its growth suggests its potential as a global source of brain tumor information on Twitter for patients, advocates, patient organizations as well as health care professionals and researchers.

Indexed as

Social Network AnalysisBrain NeoplasmsHumansSocial Mediabrain tumorshealth carenetwork analysispatient supportsocial media

Identifiers

PMID33030435
PMCPMC7582142

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.