ArticleCureus2021
Content Analysis and Characterization of Medical Tweets During the Early Covid-19 Pandemic.
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Twitter as a Mechanism of Knowledge Translation in Health Professions Education: An Exploratory Content Analysis.Perspectives on medical education · 2023Article
- A Qualitative Exploration of the Teaching- and Learning-Related Content Nursing Students Share to Social Media.The Canadian journal of nursing research = Revue canadienne de recherche en sciences infirmieres · 2022Article
- Identification and Development of Therapeutics for COVID-19.mSystems · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) has infected millions worldwide and impacted the lives of many folds more. Many clinicians share new Covid-19-related resources, research, and ideas within the online Free Open Access to Medical Education (FOAM) community of practice. This study provides a detailed content and contributor analysis of Covid-19-related tweets among the FOAM community during the first months of the pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants In this social media content analysis study, Twitter was searched from November 1, 2019, to March 21, 2020, for English tweets discussing Covid-19 in the FOAM community. Tweets were classified into one of 13 pre-specified content categories: original research, editorials, FOAM resource, public health, podcast or video, learned experience, refuting false information, policy discussion, emotional impact, blatantly false information, other Covid-19, and non-Covid-19. Further analysis of linked original research and FOAM resources was performed. One-thousand (1000) randomly selected contributor profiles and those deemed to have contributed false information were analyzed. Results The search yielded 8541 original tweets from 4104 contributors. The number of tweets in each content category were: 1557 other Covid-19 (18.2%), 1190 emotional impact (13.9%), 1122 FOAM resources (13.1%), 1111 policy discussion (13.0%), 928 advice (10.9%), 873 learned experience (10.2%), 424 non-Covid-19 (5.0%), 410 podcast or video (4.8%), 304 editorials (3.6%), 275 original research (3.2%), 245 public health (2.9%), 83 refuting false information (1.0%), and 19 blatantly false (0.2%). Conclusions Early in the Covid-19 pandemic, the FOAM community used Twitter to share Covid-19 learned experiences, online resources, crowd-sourced advice, and research and to discuss the emotional impact of Covid-19. Twitter also provided a forum for post-publication peer review of new research. Sharing blatantly false information within this community was infrequent. This study highlights several potential benefits from engaging with the FOAM community on Twitter.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.