ArticleATS scholar2022
Content Analysis of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis-related Information on Twitter.
Article in ATS scholar, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A machine learning approach to identify perspectives of people living with pulmonary fibrosis.ERJ open research · 2026Article
- Living with pulmonary fibrosis: how affected people experience disease-related information, health services and self-management strategies.BMJ open respiratory research · 2025Article
- Patient-centered care in pulmonary fibrosis: access, anticipate, and act.Respiratory research · 2024Review
- Current Landscape and Future Directions of Patient Education in Adults with Interstitial Lung Disease.ATS scholar · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Information regarding idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) on the internet is often outdated, inaccurate, and potentially harmful. Twitter is a social media platform that allows users to post content in the form of "tweets". Objective: We sought to assess the prevalence of inaccurate information regarding IPF on Twitter. We hypothesized that foundations and medical organizations would be the least likely to post inaccurate information and that inaccurate tweets would have higher user engagement. Methods: All tweets posted between 2011 and 2019 were gathered using "snscrape" on Python 3.8 while searching for the phrase "idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis". Quantitative analysis was performed to describe trends in IPF-related tweet frequency over time. A subset of tweets made between 2018 and 2019 was screened for verifiable medical statements, which were then analyzed for accuracy compared with contemporary clinical practice guidelines, with descriptive statistics reported. Logistic regression was used to compare tweet accuracy and recommendation of nonindicated therapies across sources, with adjustment for tweet age and character count. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to determine if user engagement (favorites, retweets, and replies) differed between accurate and inaccurate tweets. Results: A total of 16,787 tweets were identified between 2011 and 2019. Between 2018 and 2019, 4,861 tweets were included, of which 1,612 (33%) contained verifiable medical statements. Tweets from sources other than foundations or medical organizations were more likely to contain inaccurate information and to recommend nonindicated therapies in both unadjusted and adjusted analyses. News and media sources had the highest odds of communicating potentially harmful information in both adjusted (odds ratio [OR], 12.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.87-27.16) and unadjusted (OR, 11.62; 95% CI, 5.70-26.21) analyses when compared with foundations and medical organizations. Tweets containing inaccurate information had significantly lower numbers of favorites and retweets ( Conclusion: Misinformation regarding IPF is present on Twitter and is more often presented by news and media sources. Medically inaccurate tweets displayed less user engagement than accurate tweets. This differs from findings on IPF-related information on YouTube and Facebook, which may reflect differences in both author and consumer qualities across social media platforms.
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.