ArticleQuality & quantity2023
Sampling Twitter users for social science research: evidence from a systematic review of the literature.
Article in Quality & quantity, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The digital pulse of disaster: tracking public health needs via X during 2023 Türkiye earthquakes.BMC public health · 2026Article
- A Demonstration of Propensity-Score Weighting to Adjust a Social Media Nonprobability Sample Survey of Political Attitudes.Public opinion quarterly · 2026Article
- Beyond the Posts: Analyzing Breast Implant Illness Discourse With Natural Language Processing and Deep Learning.Aesthetic surgery journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
All social media platforms can be used to conduct social science research, but Twitter is the most popular as it provides its data via several Application Programming Interfaces, which allows qualitative and quantitative research to be conducted with its members. As Twitter is a huge universe, both in number of users and amount of data, sampling is generally required when using it for research purposes. Researchers only recently began to question whether tweet-level sampling-in which the tweet is the sampling unit-should be replaced by user-level sampling-in which the user is the sampling unit. The major rationale for this shift is that tweet-level sampling does not consider the fact that some core discussants on Twitter are much more active tweeters than other less active users, thus causing a sample biased towards the more active users. The knowledge on how to select representative samples of users in the Twitterverse is still insufficient despite its relevance for reliable and valid research outcomes. This paper contributes to this topic by presenting a systematic quantitative literature review of sampling plans designed and executed in the context of social science research in Twitter, including: (1) the definition of the target populations, (2) the sampling frames used to support sample selection, (3) the sampling methods used to obtain samples of Twitter users, (4) how data is collected from Twitter users, (5) the size of the samples, and (6) how research validity is addressed. This review can be a methodological guide for professionals and academics who want to conduct social science research involving Twitter users and the Twitterverse.
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.