Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33205047›Full record

ArticleCritical care explorations2020

Growth of the Digital Footprint of the Society of Critical Care Medicine Annual Congress: 2014-2020.

Christopher L Carroll, Tamas Szakmany, Neha S Dangayach, Ashley DePriest, Matthew S Duprey, Viren Kaul, Ruth Kleinpell, Ken Tegtmeyer, Sapna R Kudchadkar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care explorations, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

9 authors.

Christopher L CarrollDivision of Critical Care, Connecticut Children's, Hartford, CT.
Tamas SzakmanyCritical Care Directorate, Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport, Gwent, United Kingdom.
Neha S DangayachIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY.
Ashley DePriestWellStar Kennestone Regional Medical Center, Marietta, GA.
Matthew S DupreyBouvé College of Health Sciences, Northeastern University, Boston, MA.
Viren KaulDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Crouse Health/SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY.
Ruth KleinpellVanderbilt University School of Nursing, Nashville TN.
Ken TegtmeyerCincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH.
Sapna R KudchadkarDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Pediatrics, and Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since 2014, the Society of Critical Care Medicine has encouraged "live-tweeting" through the use of specific hashtags at each annual Critical Care Congress. We describe how the digital footprint of the Society of Critical Care Medicine Congress on Twitter has evolved at a time when social media use at conferences is becoming increasingly popular.

designWe used Symplur Signals (Symplur LLC, Pasadena, CA) to track all tweets containing the Society of Critical Care Medicine Congress hashtag for each annual meeting between 2014 and 2020. We collected data on the number of tweets, tweet characteristics, and impressions (i.e., potential views) for each year and data on the characteristics of the top 100 most actively tweeting users of that Congress.

settingTwitter. SUBJECTS: Users tweeting with the Critical Care Congress hashtag.

interventionsNot applicable. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsThe Critical Care Congress digital footprint grew substantially from 2014 to 2020. The 2014 Critical Care Congress included 1,629 tweets by 266 users, compared with 29,657 tweets by 3,551 participants in 2020; average hourly tweets increased from 9.7 to 177. The percentage of tweets with mentions of other users and tweets with visual media increased. Users attending the conference were significantly more likely to compose original tweets, whereas those tweeting from afar were more likely to retweet Critical Care Congress content. There was a yearly increase in content-specific hashtags used in conjunction with Critical Care Congress hashtags (

conclusionsThere has been significant growth in live-tweeting at the Critical Care Congress, along with the increased use of content-specific hashtags and visual media. This digital footprint is largely driven by a proportion of highly engaged users. As medical conferences transition to completely or partially online platforms, understanding of the digital footprint is crucial for success.

Indexed as

conference social mediadigital healthhealthcare communicationpatient-centered caresocial media

Identifiers

PMID33205047
PMCPMC7665246

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.