ArticleCureus2023
A Scoping Review of Physician Advocacy on Twitter.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Relationship between Altmetric scores and traditional metrics in the anesthesiology literature.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.