ArticleBrazilian journal of physical therapy
Keep posting and following social media profiles about physical therapy, but be aware! A cross-sectional study of social media posts on Instagram and Twitter.
Article in Brazilian journal of physical therapy. 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.
- Public knowledge of plantar fasciitis and its determinants in Saudi Arabia: A national cross-sectional study.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2026Article
- Physiotherapy students' trust in social-media physiotherapy influencers: implications for digital-literacy training in medical education.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Are AudioviSual maTERials disseminated via sOcIal meDia effective to improve evidence-based rehabilitation implementation for physiotherapists (ASTEROID trial)? A feasibility study.BMC research notes · 2025Article
- Taking a Closer Look: "Evaluating Online Video Content for Rehabilitation after Distal Radius Fracture".Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSocial media is established as a communication channel that is useful to disseminate scientific information. While social media can disseminate high quality information, it can also facilitate the spread of false or misleading information. Furthermore, social media is considered a self-promotion environment that can have several aspects related to personal marketing.
objectiveTo systematically search and review social media posts verifying whether the posts about physical therapy interventions reported sources of information; the presence of aspects suggesting conflicts of interest (COI); whether information was presented to facilitate knowledge acquisition; the reach of information posted; and the use and quality of the cited scientific references.
methodsSearches were performed on Instagram and Twitter using #reabilitação for Portuguese posts, and #rehabilitation for English posts. The inclusion criteria were posts including terms related to physical therapy and presenting interventions along with their purposes. The searches and screening processes were performed by at least two independent researchers.
resultsOf 1,145 pre-selected posts, 632 posts were included, of which 14% cited references as source of information, 57% presented potential COI, and 9% facilitated knowledge acquisition. The posts received the mean ± SD of 88 ± 593 likes and profiles had a mean of 5,162 ± 37,240 followers. Considering the posts that cited references, most posts presented consistent information (51%) and 6% presented only positives outcomes (selection bias). Many references were of poor methodological quality (39%).
conclusionThe present study enlightens the fact that most posts on Instagram and Twitter regarding physical therapy interventions did not report or use sources to support the information disseminated. Also, most posts were not created to facilitate knowledge acquisition. REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO register database (CRD42021276941).
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.