Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34048469›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Building a community of practice through social media using the hashtag #neoEBM.

Amy Keir, Nicolas Bamat, Bron Hennebry, Brian King, Ravi Patel, Clyde Wright, Alexandra Scrivens, Omar ElKhateeb, Souvik Mitra, Damian Roland

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

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

10 authors at 9 institutions in 5 countries.

Amy KeirSAHMRI Women and Kids, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1692-5676
Nicolas BamatDivision of Neonatology and Center for Pediatric Clinical Effectiveness, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America.
Bron HennebryAdelaide Medical School and the Robinson Research Institute, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Brian KingDepartment of Pediatrics, Section of Neonatology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States of America.
Ravi PatelEmory University School of Medicine and Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Clyde WrightDepartment of Pediatrics, Section of Neonatology, Children's Hospital Colorado and The School of Medicine, The University of Colorado, Denver, CO, United States of America.
Alexandra ScrivensNewborn Services, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Omar ElKhateebKing Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Souvik MitraDepartments of Pediatrics, Community Health & Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Damian RolandChildren's Emergency Department, Paediatric Emergency Medicine Leicester Academic (PEMLA) Group, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, United Kingdom.
NSW Ambulance · AUBaylor College of Medicine · USChildren's Hospital Colorado · USChildren's Hospital of Philadelphia · USDalhousie University · CAEmory University · USJohn Radcliffe Hospital · GBKing Fahd Medical City · SAUniversity of Leicester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesSocial media use is associated with developing communities of practice that promote the rapid exchange of information across traditional institutional and geographical boundaries faster than previously possible. We aimed to describe and share our experience using #neoEBM (Neonatal Evidence Based Medicine) hashtag to organise and build a digital community of neonatal care practice. MATERIALS AND

methodsAnalysis of #neoEBM Twitter data in the Symplur Signals database between 1 May 2018 to 9 January 2021. Data on tweets containing the #neoEBM hashtag were analysed using online analytical tools, including the total number of tweets and user engagement.

resultsSince its registration, a total of 3 228 distinct individual Twitter users used the hashtag with 23 939 tweets and 37 259 710 impressions generated. The two days with the greatest number of tweets containing #neoEBM were 8 May 2018 (n = 218) and 28 April 2019 (n = 340), coinciding with the annual Pediatric Academic Societies meeting. The majority of Twitter users made one tweet using #neoEBM (n = 1078), followed by two tweets (n = 411) and more than 10 tweets (n = 347). The number of individual impressions (views) of tweets containing #neoEBM was 37 259 710. Of the 23 939 tweets using #neoEBM, 17 817 (74%) were retweeted (shared), 15 643 (65%) included at least one link and 1 196 (5%) had at least one reply. As #neoEBM users increased over time, so did tweets containing #neoEBM, with each additional user of the hashtag associated with a mean increase in 7.8 (95% CI 7.7-8.0) tweets containing #neoEBM.

conclusionOur findings support the observation that the #neoEBM community possesses many of the characteristics of a community of practice, and it may be an effective tool to disseminate research findings. By sharing our experiences, we hope to encourage others to engage with or build online digital communities of practice to share knowledge and build collaborative networks across disciplines, institutions and countries.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineCohort StudiesHumansInformation DisseminationSocial Media

Identifiers

PMID34048469
PMCPMC8162580
OpenAlexW3165818196

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.