ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2022
#Ophthalmology: Social Media Utilization and Impact in Ophthalmology Journals, Professional Societies, and Eye Health Organizations.
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 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Social Media and Telemedicine in Ophthalmology: Misinformation, Patient Perception, and the Evolving Digital Patient.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
- Association of Twitter author Altmetric patterns with research impact in ophthalmology.International ophthalmology · 2025Article
- A role for qualitative methods in researching Twitter data on a popular science article's communication.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2024Article
- Tweeting for Success: The Role of Twitter in Enhancing SCImago Journal Rank for Specialty Surgical Journals.Cureus · 2023Article
- Association Between Twitter Mention and Open-Access Status on Article Citation Metrics in the Field of Ophthalmology.Cureus · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Aim: To evaluate and quantify social media presence of ophthalmology peer-reviewed journals, professional societies, and eye health organizations, and to determine if there is a correlation between social media utilization and Twitter engagement metrics or journal impact measures. Methods: We searched for online profiles of 100 ophthalmology peer-reviewed journals, 333 professional ophthalmology societies, and 40 eye health organizations on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Impact was quantified by recording the number of "likes" on Facebook and number of followers on Twitter and Instagram. We also used Twitonomy software to obtain advanced Twitter metrics for all journal accounts from 2018 to 2021, and compared to journal impact measured by SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) score, the h-index, and impact factor. Results: Eye health organizations averaged significantly greater Facebooks "likes" and Twitter followers than both peer-reviewed journals and professional societies (p < 0.0001). Of 100 journals studied, 30% were active on Twitter, 25% on Facebook, and 6% on Instagram. Slightly more than half of all journal-affiliated social media accounts were accessible from the journal website. Among journals with active Twitter accounts, total followers, total tweets, average retweets, and average "favorites" were all significantly positively correlated with academic metrics such as the SJR, h-index, and/or impact factor. Conclusion: Greater social media engagement is associated with higher ophthalmology journal impact metrics; however, ophthalmology journals and professional societies lag behind eye health organizations in social media engagement. Although unable to demonstrate causality, social media may be an underutilized visibility, communication, and dissemination tool.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.