Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33179209›Full record

ReviewCurrent hematologic malignancy reports2020

Tweeting from the Bench: Twitter and the Physician-Scientist Benefits and Challenges.

Jessica S Little, Rizwan Romee

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current hematologic malignancy reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

2 authors.

Jessica S LittleDivision of Infectious Diseases, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis Street, PBB A-4, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. jlittle@bwh.harvard.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-8093-5647
Rizwan RomeeHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewSocial media platforms such as Twitter are increasingly utilized to interact, collaborate, and exchange information within the academic medicine community. However, as Twitter begins to become formally incorporated into professional meetings, educational activities, and even the consideration of academic promotion, it is critical to better understand both the benefits and challenges posed by this platform. RECENT

findingsTwitter use is rising amongst healthcare providers nationally and internationally, including in the field of hematology and oncology. Participation on Twitter at national conferences such as the annual meetings of American Society of Hematology (ASH) and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has steadily increased over recent years. Tweeting can be used advantageously to cultivate opportunities for networking or collaboration, promote one's research and increase access to other's research, and provide efficient means of learning and educating. However, given the novelty of this platform and little formal training on its use, concerns regarding patient privacy, professionalism, and equity must be considered. These new technologies present unique opportunities for career development, networking, research advancement, and efficient learning. From "tweet ups" to Twitter journal clubs, physician-scientists are quickly learning how to capitalize on the opportunities that this medium offers. Yet caution must be exercised to ensure that the information exchanged is valid and true, that professionalism is maintained, that patient privacy is protected, and that this platform does not reinforce preexisting structural inequalities.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelPhysiciansSocial MediaHumansPatient Care ManagementAcademic medicineSocial mediaTechnologyTwitter

Identifiers

PMID33179209
PMCPMC7657377

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.