Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33838532›Full record

ArticleESMO open2021

Impact of COVID-19 on social media as perceived by the oncology community: results from a survey in collaboration with the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the OncoAlert Network.

G Morgan, M Tagliamento, M Lambertini, B Devnani, B Westphalen, R Dienstmann, I Bozovic-Spasojevic, A Calles, C Criscitiello, A Curioni and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ESMO open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. User profiles of young breast cancer survivors on Chinese social media: machine learning-based text mining analysis study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Cancer misinformation on social media.CA: a cancer journal for clinicians
    Review
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

18 authors.

G MorganDepartment of Medical and Radiation Oncology, Skane University Hospital, Lund, Sweden. Electronic address: OncoAlertNetwork@OncoAlert360.com.
M TagliamentoDepartment of Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (DiMI), School of Medicine, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy; Department of Medical Oncology, Oncologia Medica 2, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy.
M LambertiniDepartment of Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (DiMI), School of Medicine, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy; Department of Medical Oncology, U.O.C. Clinica di Oncologia Medica, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy.
B DevnaniDepartment of Radiotherapy and Oncology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
B WestphalenDepartment of Medicine 3 and Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Munich, Germany.
R DienstmannOncology Data Science Group, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain.
I Bozovic-SpasojevicInstitute for Oncology and Radiology of Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia.
A CallesHospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañon, Madrid, Spain.
C CriscitielloDepartment of Experimental Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Department of Hematology and Oncology (DIPO), University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
A CurioniDepartment of Medical Oncology and Hematology, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland.
A M GarciaSection of Medical Oncology, Dagupan Doctors Villaflor Memorial Hospital, Dagupan, Philippines.
A LamarcaDepartment of Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation, Manchester, UK; Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
S PilottoSection of Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Verona Hospital Trust, Verona, Italy.
M SchefflerDepartment I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
M StrijbosDepartment of Medical Oncology, GZA Hospitals, Sint-Augustinus, Antwerp, Belgium; Monash University, Eastern Health Clinical School, Box Hill, Australia.
R WongDepartment of Medical Oncology, Eastern Health, Box Hill, Australia.
E de AzambujaInstitut Jules Bordet and l'Université Libre de Bruxelles (U.LB.), Brussels, Belgium.
S PetersOncology Department, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CHUV) and Lausanne University, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has impacted all aspects of modern-day oncology, including how stakeholders communicate through social media. We surveyed oncology stakeholders in order to assess their attitudes pertaining to social media and how it has been affected during the pandemic. MATERIALS AND

methodsA 40-item survey was distributed to stakeholders from 8 July to 22 July 2020 and was promoted through the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the OncoAlert Network.

resultsOne thousand and seventy-six physicians and stakeholders took part in the survey. In total, 57.3% of respondents were medical oncologists, 50.6% aged <40 years, 50.8% of female gender and mostly practicing in Europe (51.5%). More than 90% of respondents considered social media a useful tool for distributing scientific information and for education. Most used social media to stay up to date on cancer care in general (62.5%) and cancer care during COVID-19 (61%) given the constant flow of information. Respondents also used social media to interact with other oncologists (78.8%) and with patients (34.4%). Overall, 61.1% of respondents were satisfied with the role that social media was playing during the COVID-19 pandemic. On the other hand, 41.1% of respondents reported trouble in discriminating between credible and less credible information and 30% stated social networks were a source of stress. For this reason, one-third of respondents reduced its use during the COVID-19 pandemic. Regarding meeting attendance, a total of 59.1% of responding physicians preferred in-person meetings to virtual ones, and 51.8% agreed that virtual meetings and social distancing could hamper effective collaboration.

conclusionSocial media has a useful role in supporting cancer care and professional engagement in oncology. Although one-third of respondents reported reduced use of social media due to stress during the COVID-19 pandemic, the majority found social media useful to keep up to date and were satisfied with the role social media was playing during the pandemic.

Indexed as

COVID-19OncologistsSocial MediaAdultAgedAttitude of Health PersonnelAttitude to ComputersFemaleHumansInformation DisseminationMaleMedical OncologyMiddle AgedSocial NetworkingStress, PsychologicalSurveys and QuestionnairescancerCOVID-19oncologysocial mediavirtual congress

Identifiers

PMID33838532
PMCPMC8038939

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.