ArticleCrohn's & colitis 3602021
Reach and Power of Physician-Initiated Tweets in a Twitter Inflammatory Bowel Disease Community.
Article in Crohn's & colitis 360, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy best practice statements on the sharing of endoscopic images and videos on social media.VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2024Article
- Inflammatory Bowel Disease and X (Formerly Twitter) Influencers: Who Are They and What Do They Say?Cureus · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) specialist Twitter engagement and thematic content was assessed. Methods: The nature of interaction between IBD specialists and users who responded to them was analyzed based on (1) content analysis of stakeholders who responded to them; (2) nature of interaction through a manual thematic content analysis of IBD specialist tweets and responses; (3) prominence of interaction by employing descriptive analysis and statistical inferences relative to the number of replies, likes, and retweets. Analyzed samples included of tweets ( Results: Healthcare professionals (HCPs) more often engaged with peer-HCPs, compared to other stakeholders. When it comes to the nature of exchanges, of original tweets, the most common content was for knowledge sharing (58%) and endorsement (28%). In the knowledge sharing category, research accounted for more than half of those tweets (53%). Of replies, knowledge sharing occurred most frequently with a subtheme of IBD management (62%). Conclusions: HCP-HCP Twitter engagement was more frequent than HCP-other Twitter stakeholder interaction. The primary purpose for this engagement was found to obtain real-time information, professionally network, and disseminate research.
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.