Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35418205›Full record

ArticleBMC complementary medicine and therapies2022

Tracking discussions of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: a month-by-month sentiment analysis of Twitter data.

Jeremy Y Ng, Wael Abdelkader, Cynthia Lokker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Jeremy Y NgDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. ngjy2@mcmaster.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0031-5873
Wael AbdelkaderDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9581-1521
Cynthia LokkerDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2436-4290

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a novel infectious disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Despite the paucity of evidence, various complementary, alternative and integrative medicines (CAIMs) have been being touted as both preventative and curative. We conducted sentiment and emotion analysis with the intent of understanding CAIM content related to COVID-19 being generated on Twitter across 9 months.

methodsTweets relating to CAIM and COVID-19 were extracted from the George Washington University Libraries Dataverse Coronavirus tweets dataset from March 03 to November 30, 2020. We trained and tested a machine learning classifier using a large, pre-labelled Twitter dataset, which was applied to predict the sentiment of each CAIM-related tweet, and we used a natural language processing package to identify the emotions based on the words contained in the tweets.

resultsOur dataset included 28 713 English-language Tweets. The number of CAIM-related tweets during the study period peaked in May 2020, then dropped off sharply over the subsequent three months; the fewest CAIM-related tweets were collected during August 2020 and remained low for the remainder of the collection period. Most tweets (n = 15 612, 54%) were classified as positive, 31% were neutral (n = 8803) and 15% were classified as negative (n = 4298). The most frequent emotions expressed across tweets were trust, followed by fear, while surprise and disgust were the least frequent. Though volume of tweets decreased over the 9 months of the study, the expressed sentiments and emotions remained constant.

conclusionThe results of this sentiment analysis enabled us to establish key CAIMs being discussed at the intersection of COVID-19 across a 9-month period on Twitter. Overall, the majority of our subset of tweets were positive, as were the emotions associated with the words found within them. This may be interpreted as public support for CAIM, however, further qualitative investigation is warranted. Such future directions may be used to combat misinformation and improve public health strategies surrounding the use of social media information.

Indexed as

COVID-19Integrative MedicineSocial MediaHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2Sentiment AnalysisComplementary and alternative medicineCOVID-19Sentiment analysisSocial mediaTwitter

Identifiers

PMID35418205
PMCPMC9006490

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.