Trial reportJournal of hepatology2021
Optimizing the use of twitter for research dissemination: The "Three Facts and a Story" randomized-controlled trial.
Trial report in Journal of hepatology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- How to use social media to amplify your professional impact in respiratory medicine.Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2026Article
- Transforming academic medicine through social media: why isn't it working for me?Pediatric research · 2026Article
- American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy best practice statements on the sharing of endoscopic images and videos on social media.VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2024Article
- Article
- Researchers in cardiology - Why and how to get on Twitter?International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2022Review
- The Volume and Tone of Twitter Posts About Cannabis Use During Pregnancy: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2022Article
- A serious side to social media.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
aimsPublished research promoted on twitter reaches more readers. Tweets with graphics are more engaging than those without. However, data are limited regarding how to optimize multimedia tweets for engagement.
methodsThe "Three facts and a Story" trial is a randomized-controlled trial comparing a tweet featuring a graphical abstract to paired tweets featuring the personal motivations behind the research and a summary of the findings. Fifty-four studies published by the Journal of Hepatology were randomized at the time of online publication. The primary endpoint was assessed at 28-days from online publication with a primary outcome of full-text downloads from the website. Secondary outcomes included page views and twitter engagement including impressions, likes, and retweets.
resultsOverall, 31 studies received standard tweets and 23 received story tweets. Five studies were randomized to story tweets but crossed over to standard tweets for lack of author participation. Most papers tweeted were original articles (94% standard, 91% story) and clinical topics (55% standard, 61% story). Story tweets were associated with a significant increase in the number of full text downloads, 51 (34-71) vs. 25 (13-41), p = 0.002. There was also a non-significant increase in the number of page views. Story tweets generated an average of >1,000 more impressions than standard tweets (5,388 vs. 4,280, p = 0.002). Story tweets were associated with a similar number of retweets, and a non-significant increase in the number of likes.
conclusionTweets featuring the authors and their motivations may increase engagement with published research.
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.