Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35994318›Full record

ArticleJMIR cancer2022

Exploring Urological Malignancies on Pinterest: Content Analysis.

Amber S Herbert, Naeemul Hassan, Rena D Malik, Stacy Loeb, Akya Myrie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Cancer misinformation on social media.CA: a cancer journal for clinicians
    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

5 authors.

Amber S HerbertStanford School of Medicine, Department of Urology, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2391-3465
Naeemul Hassan *University of Maryland, College Park, College of Information Studies, College park, MD, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3951-6886
Rena D Malik *Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8994-6764
Stacy Loeb *New York University School of Medicine, Department of Urology, New York, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3933-9207
Akya Myrie *Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Department of Urology, Cleveland, OH, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4340-9175

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPinterest is a visually oriented social media platform with over 250 million monthly users. Previous studies have found misinformative content on genitourinary malignancies to be broadly disseminated on YouTube; however, no study has assessed the quality of this content on Pinterest.

objectiveOur objective was to evaluate the quality, understandability, and actionability of genitourinary malignancy content on Pinterest.

methodsWe examined 540 Pinterest posts or pins, using the following search terms: "bladder cancer," "kidney cancer," "prostate cancer," and "testicular cancer." The pins were limited to English language and topic-specific content, resulting in the following exclusions: bladder (n=88), kidney (n=4), prostate (n=79), and testicular cancer (n=10), leaving 359 pins as the final analytic sample. Pinterest pins were classified based on publisher and perceived race or ethnicity. Content was assessed using 2 validated grading systems: DISCERN quality criteria and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool. The presence of misinformation was evaluated using a published Likert scale ranging from 1=none to 5=high.

resultsOverall, 359 pins with a total of 8507 repins were evaluated. The primary publisher of genitourinary malignancy pins were health and wellness groups (n=162, 45%). Across all genitourinary malignancy pins with people, only 3% (n=7) were perceived as Black. Additionally, Asian (n=2, 1%) and Latinx (n=1, 0.5%) individuals were underrepresented in all pins. Nearly 75% (n=298) of the pins had moderate- to poor-quality information. Misinformative content was apparent in 4%-26% of all genitourinary cancer pins. Understandability and actionability were poor in 55% (n=198) and 100% (n=359) of the pins, respectively.

conclusionsOn Pinterest, the majority of the urological oncology patient-centric content is of low quality and lacks diversity. This widely used, yet unregulated platform has the ability to influence consumers' health knowledge and decision-making. Ultimately, this can lead to consumers making suboptimal medical decisions. Moreover, our findings demonstrate underrepresentation across many racial and ethnic groups. Efforts should be made to ensure the dissemination of diverse, high-quality, and accurate health care information to the millions of users on Pinterest and other social media platforms.

Indexed as

accuracybladder cancercontentgenitourinaryinformationkidney cancermalignancymisinformationoncologyPinterestprostate cancerqualitysocial mediatesticular cancerurological cancer

Identifiers

PMID35994318
PMCPMC9446140

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.