#Cardiotwitter: The Global Cardiology Fellowship.

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.

1. Influence of Social Media on the Dissemination and Uptake of Cardiology Research.Cureus · 2025
   Review
2. Training and Career Development in Cardio-Oncology Translational and Implementation Science.Heart failure clinics · 2022
   Review
3. #Cardiotwitter: The Global Cardiology Fellowship.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021
   Article
4. Twitter (X) in Medicine: Friend or Foe to the Field of Interventional Cardiology?Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions
   Review

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as