Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35644051›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of medical informatics2022

Biases in using social media data for public health surveillance: A scoping review.

Yunpeng Zhao, Xing He, Zheng Feng, Sarah Bost, Mattia Prosperi, Yonghui Wu, Yi Guo, Jiang Bian

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of medical informatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. 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

8 authors.

Yunpeng ZhaoHealth Outcomes & Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville City, FL, United States. Electronic address: yup111@ufl.edu.
Xing HeHealth Outcomes & Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville City, FL, United States. Electronic address: hexing@ufl.edu.
Zheng FengHealth Outcomes & Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville City, FL, United States. Electronic address: fengzheng@ufl.edu.
Sarah BostHealth Outcomes & Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville City, FL, United States.
Mattia ProsperiDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Florida, Gainesville City, FL, United States. Electronic address: mattia@ufl.edu.
Yonghui WuHealth Outcomes & Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville City, FL, United States. Electronic address: yonghuiwu@ufl.edu.
Yi GuoHealth Outcomes & Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville City, FL, United States. Electronic address: yiguo@ufl.edu.
Jiang BianHealth Outcomes & Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville City, FL, United States. Electronic address: bianjiang@ufl.edu.

Funding

NCCDPHP CDC HHS U18 DP006512
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesA landscape scan of the methods that are used to either assess or mitigate biases when using social media data for public health surveillance, through a scoping review. MATERIALS AND

methodsFollowing best practices, we searched two literature databases (i.e., PubMed and Web of Science) and covered literature published up to July 2021. Through two rounds of screening (i.e., title/abstract screening, and then full-text screening), we extracted study objectives, analysis methods, and the methods used to assess or address the different biases from the eligible articles.

resultsWe identified a total of 2,856 articles from the two databases. After the screening processes, we extracted and synthesized 20 studies that either assessed or mitigated biases when leveraging social media data for public health surveillance. Researchers have tried to assess or address several different types of biases such as demographic bias, keyword bias, and platform bias. In particular, we found 11 studies that tried to measure the reliability of the research findings from social media data by comparing them with other data sources. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionWe synthesized the types of biases and the methods used to assess or address the biases in studies that use social media data for public health surveillance. We found very few studies, despite the large number of publications using social media data, considered the various bias issues that are present from data collection to analysis methods. Overlooking bias can distort the study results and lead to unintended consequences, especially in the field of public health surveillance. These research gaps warrant further investigations more systematically. Strategies from other fields for addressing biases can be introduced for future public health surveillance systems that use social media data.

Indexed as

Social MediaBiasData CollectionHumansPublic HealthPublic Health SurveillanceReproducibility of ResultsBiasPublic health surveillanceSocial media

Identifiers

PMID35644051
PMCPMC12905649

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.