ArticlePloS one2024
Cross sectional study of Twitter (X) use among academic anesthesiology departments in the United States.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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.
- [Social media in anesthesiology: a systematic review on typology as well as opportunities and risks].Die Anaesthesiologie · 2026Pooled it
- Reddit, Discord, and the Spreadsheet: Misinformation About Residency Programs and How to Combat It.Journal of graduate medical education · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Twitter (recently renamed X) is used by academic anesthesiology departments as a social media platform for various purposes. We hypothesized that Twitter (X) use would be prevalent among academic anesthesiology departments and that the number of tweets would vary by region, physician faculty size, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) research funding rank. We performed a descriptive study of Twitter (X) use by academic anesthesiology departments (i.e. those with a residency program) in 2022. Original tweets were collected using a Twitter (X) analytics tool. Summary statistics were reported for tweet number and content. The median number of tweets was compared after stratifying by region, physician faculty size, and NIH funding rank. Among 166 academic anesthesiology departments, there were 73 (44.0%) that had a Twitter (X) account in 2022. There were 3,578 original tweets during the study period and the median number of tweets per department was 21 (25th-75th = 0, 75) with most tweets (55.8%) announcing general departmental news and a smaller number highlighting social events (12.5%), research (11.1%), recruiting (7.1%), DEI activities (5.2%), and trainee experiences (4.1%). There was no significant difference in the median number of tweets by region (P = 0.81). The median number of tweets differed significantly by physician faculty size (P<0.001) with larger departments tweeting more and also by NIH funding rank (P = 0.005) with highly funded departments tweeting more. In 2022, we found that less than half of academic anesthesiology departments had a Twitter (X) account, and the median number of annual tweets per account was relatively low. Overall, Twitter (X) use was less common than anticipated among academic anesthesiology departments and most tweets focused on promotion of departmental activities or individual faculty. There may be opportunities for more widespread and effective use of Twitter (X) by academic anesthesiology departments including education about anesthesiology as a specialty.
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.