Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35300033›Full record

ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2022

Ophthalmology and Social Media: An In-Depth Investigation of Ophthalmologic Content on Instagram.

Andy S Huang, Ali Adel Ne'ma Abdullah, Kelsey Chen, Dagny Zhu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Content Analysis of a Congenital Cataract Social Media Support Group.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Ophthalmology residency programs on social media.International ophthalmology · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Andy S HuangMedical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4576-9748
Ali Adel Ne'ma AbdullahSt Helier Hospital, Sutton, London, UK.
Kelsey ChenMidwestern University, Glendale, AZ, USA.
Dagny ZhuHyperspeed LASIK/NVISION Eye Centers, Rowland Heights, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7784-5202

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Social media has become a popular source of health information for patients. This study aimed to characterize the top-performing ophthalmologic posts on a large social media platform to better understand the spread of ophthalmic information via social media. Materials and Methods: This was a web-based study that searched for ophthalmology-related posts on Instagram, with subjects being users who posted ophthalmic content. A list of 36 ophthalmology-related hashtags, including the most common diagnoses and procedures identified from the IRIS Registry, was queried. For each hashtag, data were collected for "Top 9 posts" (as ranked by Instagram's engagement-based algorithm) at three different time points. Posts were analyzed for the poster's background, credentials, post format, content, caption length, and engagement level. Results: Of the top-performing posts analyzed (n = 972), the most frequent post format was a photo (82.2%), followed by video (8.8%) and graphic (8.4%). Ophthalmologists (35.8%) authored the highest number of posts, followed by patients (27.1%), optometrists (20.1%), and organizations (12.7%). The highest average engagement level ratios (ELRs) belonged to ophthalmologists-in-training (0.096), followed by patients (0.084), optometrists (0.070), all ophthalmologists (0.067) and organizations (0.051); p < 0.001. The most engaging type of content was self-promotional (0.118) and personal experience-related (0.091); educational content was the least engaging (0.059) even though it comprised the majority of posts (56%); (p < 0.001). Characteristics that predicted the highest ELRs (reaching 80th percentile) were captions and/or images that featured personal experiences (3.335 OR), whitecoats (3.259), and those authored by ophthalmologist trainees (3.172); (p < 0.01). The least engaging were those featuring fundus photos (0.281), educational content (0.359), and authored by organizations (0.428); (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The majority of ophthalmologic content on Instagram is authored by non-ophthalmologists, with educational content being the least engaging. Practicing ophthalmologists have an opportunity to reach more patients through social media by incorporating specific features known to drive post engagement and reach. Precis: Social media has become a popular source of health information for patients. Our study demonstrates that the majority of ophthalmology content on Instagram is authored by non- ophthalmologists, with educational content being the least engaging. Practicing ophthalmologists have an opportunity to reach a wider audience through social media by incorporating specific features known to drive post engagement and reach.

Indexed as

contenteducationengagementengagement level ratiohashtagInstagramophthalmologistophthalmologyoptometristpatientsocial media

Identifiers

PMID35300033
PMCPMC8921826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.