ArticleWorld neurosurgery: X2023
Variation in academic neurosurgery departments' #neurosurgery social media influence.
Article in World neurosurgery: X, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Implementation of Social Media in Neurosurgery: A Systematic Review of the Literature.Acta neurochirurgica · 2025Pooled it
- Social media "SoMe" in neuro-oncology: a review of the literature.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Review
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: Social media use is increasingly common among academic neurosurgery departments, but its relationship with academic metrics remains underexamined. Methods: We examine the relationship between American academic neurosurgery departments' number of followers on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook and the following academic metrics: Doximity Residency rankings, US News & World Report rankings (USNWR) of their affiliated medical schools, and the amount of NIH funding of those schools. Results: Few departments had disproportionate number of followers. A greater proportion of programs had Twitter accounts (88.9%) than had Instagram (72.2%) or Facebook (51.9%) accounts (p=0.0001). Programs identified as "Influencers" had more departmental NIH funding (p=0.044), more institutional NIH funding (p=0.035), better Doximity residency rankings (p=0.044), and better affiliated medical school rankings (p=0.002). Number of Twitter followers had the strongest correlation with academic metrics, yet only modest correlations were identified to departmental NIH funding (R=0.496, p=0.0001), institutional NIH funding (R=0.387, p=0.0072), Doximity residency rank (R=0.411, p=0.0020), and affiliated medical school ranking (R=0.545,p<0.0001). On multivariable regression, only being affiliated with a medical school in the top quartile on the USNWR rankings, rather than neurosurgery departmental metrics, predicted having more Twitter (OR=5.666, p=0.012) and Instagram (OR=8.33, p=0.009) followers. Conclusion: American academic neurosurgery departments preferentially use Twitter over Instagram or Facebook. Their Twitter or Instagram presences are associated with better performance on traditional academic metrics. However, these associations are modest, suggesting that other factors contribute to a department's social media influence. A department's affiliated medical school may contribute to the department's social media brand.
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.