Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37565125›Full record

ArticleCureus2023

A Scoping Review of Physician Advocacy on Twitter.

Abigail M Cahill, John C Carlson

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Relationship between Altmetric scores and traditional metrics in the anesthesiology literature.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Abigail M CahillPediatrics, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, USA.
John C CarlsonPediatrics, Oschner Health System, New Orleans, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Twitter has been adopted by physicians across most medical specialties; it allows for the wide dissemination of information and calls to action, brings new stakeholders into collations, promotes academic engagement, and fosters collaboration between academia and private practice. In this review of the literature, we briefly outline the state of advocacy in health care and summarize current Twitter-based advocacy efforts in the major specialties of health care, identifying both successful strategies as well as gaps in Twitter advocacy research. Relevant articles were obtained via PubMed and Google Scholar searches using the phrases "Twitter advocacy healthcare," "[specialty name] Twitter" and "[specialty name] Twitter advocacy." Several overarching themes were found to be widely utilized in specialty-specific discussions of Twitter advocacy efforts: organizing under a specific hashtag, fostering dialogue between stakeholders, and tweeting using personalized, action-oriented language. Fields such as pediatrics, heme/onc, ENT, and ophthalmology have most thoroughly embraced the desire to learn how to most effectively advocate on Twitter. Other fields such as OBGYN, cardiology, and surgery have less academic focus on online advocacy. Outside of advocacy efforts, the research and academic benefits of Twitter are well described in nearly every specialty. In conclusion, while clinicians are encouraged to advocate online, only broad strategies for online engagement are currently offered. Additional research into the details of how to successfully create an online profile and Twitter presence is needed to ensure all physicians are able to maximize their advocacy efforts, with clarification of the goals and objectives of this engagement also required.

Indexed as

advocacyonline advocacyphysician online presenceresidency curriculumtwitter

Identifiers

PMID37565125
PMCPMC10410681

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.