ReviewJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions
Twitter (X) in Medicine: Friend or Foe to the Field of Interventional Cardiology?
Review in Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Social Media-Based Cancer Education: Bibliometric and Thematic Analysis.JMIR cancer · 2025Article
- Exploring Public Interest in Atrial Fibrillation and Its Treatment Measures: A Google Trends Analysis.Cureus · 2025Article
- Navigating Digital Medical Education in the Current Era: Process Over Platform.US cardiology · 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
Twitter, which recently changed its name to "X," is a popular social media platform that is used widely across the world due to its easy accessibility through the internet. Due to more public familiarity, we referred to this social media platform as "Twitter (X)" in this article. Users can create posts, also called as "tweets" with a limitation of 280 characters and can add images, videos, and weblinks. While there are several social media platforms used by health care professionals, eg, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, LinkedIn, and Periscope, Twitter (X) is an extremely popular platform among physicians, especially cardiologists. Due to its persistent growth and ever-expanding outreach, Twitter (X) is facilitating dissemination of scientific information including complex medical knowledge leading the way in collaborations, and in organizing and networking of various health care professionals, patients, and caregivers with shared medical interests. While there are several advantages of Twitter (X) as an important tool in our contemporary medical armamentarium, there are also some drawbacks. False information can be distributed effortlessly and can entrench unscientific beliefs as there is no peer-review process. Occasionally, discourteous discussions between health care professionals can be misinterpreted by users with limited medical knowledge. Other disadvantages include Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act violations and hacking of accounts. Therefore, it is imperative for health care professionals interested to use this valuable tool to be familiar with and cautious about its potential risks and limitations.
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.