Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35348465›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2022

The Volume and Tone of Twitter Posts About Cannabis Use During Pregnancy: Protocol for a Scoping Review.

Liam Cresswell, Lisette Espin-Noboa, Malia S Q Murphy, Serine Ramlawi, Mark C Walker, Márton Karsai, Daniel J Corsi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Liam CresswellObstetrics & Maternal Newborn Investigations Research Group, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4844-8122
Lisette Espin-NoboaDepartment of Network and Data Science, Central European University, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3945-2966
Malia S Q MurphyObstetrics & Maternal Newborn Investigations Research Group, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4566-4957
Serine RamlawiObstetrics & Maternal Newborn Investigations Research Group, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4356-9726
Mark C WalkerObstetrics & Maternal Newborn Investigations Research Group, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8974-4548
Márton KarsaiDepartment of Network and Data Science, Central European University, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5382-8950
Daniel J CorsiObstetrics & Maternal Newborn Investigations Research Group, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7063-3354
University of Ottawa · CACentral European University · ATOttawa Hospital · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCannabis use has increased in Canada since its legalization in 2018, including among pregnant women who may be motivated to use cannabis to reduce symptoms of nausea and vomiting. However, a growing body of research suggests that cannabis use during pregnancy may harm the developing fetus. As a result, patients increasingly seek medical advice from online sources, but these platforms may also spread anecdotal descriptions or misinformation. Given the possible disconnect between online messaging and evidence-based research about the effects of cannabis use during pregnancy, there is a potential for advice taken from social media to affect the health of mothers and their babies.

objectiveThis study aims to quantify the volume and tone of English language posts related to cannabis use in pregnancy from January 2012 to December 2021.

methodsModeling published frameworks for scoping reviews, we will collect publicly available posts from Twitter that mention cannabis use during pregnancy and use the Twitter Application Programming Interface for Academic Research to extract data from tweets, including public metrics such as the number of likes, retweets, and quotes, as well as health effect mentions, sentiment, location, and users' interests. These data will be used to quantify how cannabis use during pregnancy is discussed on Twitter and to build a qualitative profile of supportive and opposing posters.

resultsThe CHEO Research Ethics Board reviewed our project and granted an exemption in May 2021. As of December 2021, we have gained approval to use the Twitter Application Programming Interface for Academic Research and have developed a preliminary search strategy that returns over 3 million unique tweets posted between 2012 and 2021.

conclusionsUnderstanding how Twitter is being used to discuss cannabis use during pregnancy will help public health agencies and health care providers assess the messaging patients may be receiving and develop communication strategies to counter misinformation, especially in geographical regions where legalization is recent or imminent. Most importantly, we foresee that our findings will assist expecting families in making informed choices about where they choose to access advice about using cannabis during pregnancy.

trial registrationOpen Science Framework 10.17605/OSF.IO/BW8DA; www.osf.io/6fb2e. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/34421.

Indexed as

cannabishealth informationpregnancysocial mediaTwitter

Identifiers

PMID35348465
PMCPMC9006132
OpenAlexW4220731144

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.