ArticleCureus2023
Pneumonia: A Cross-Sectional Study of the Quality and Reliability of the Content on Instagram.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn today's society, Instagram (Meta Platforms, Inc., Menlo Park, California, United States) has grown to be a platform of enormous importance. It has completely changed the way we connect, share, and consume content, with several active users. Instagram may be a powerful tool for education, helping to inform and raise public awareness of a range of health conditions, including pneumonia. The present paper aims to evaluate and analyze the type, quality, and reliability of information about pneumonia being shared on Instagram. METHODOLOGY: Using the hashtags
resultsA total of 600 posts were initially evaluated, of which only 418 posts (69.67%) met the inclusion criteria. Images (79.7%) were the most common type of post. Hospitals (31.34%) and survivors/patients (18.9%) were the most common uploaders. There was a statistically significant difference in the quality (GQS) of posts uploaded by doctors, hospitals, healthcare organizations, patient survivors, and others (p <0.001). Conclusions: There is a significant difference in the quality of posts uploaded by healthcare organizations compared to other groups. Government agencies and medical organizations impose tougher rules on the quality and trustworthiness of the type of healthcare-related information transmitted in order to minimize the distribution of low-quality and unreliable information.
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.