ReviewUrologia2024
Social media and urology: The good, the bad and the ugly.
Review in Urologia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- From radiation beams to digital streams: social media engagement of German radiotherapy facilities.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026Article
- Journal Clubs in Medical Education: Contemporary Formats, Implementation Strategies, and Future Directions.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Review
- Social Media and Men's Health: Separating Science from Speculation in Andrology.Basic and clinical andrology · 2025Review
- Patient consent in the modern era: Novel tools and practical considerations in urology.Current urology · 2025Article
- Social Media in Urologic Healthcare: Transforming Treatment, Management, and Online Medical Communication.International neurourology journal · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Social media (SoMe) is now a core part of modern-day life with increased use among both patients and urologists. The interplay of SoMe between these two parties is complex. From a patient perspective, SoMe platforms can serve as educational tools as well as communication portals to support networks and patient communities. However, studies report the educational value of content online is often poor and may contain misinformation. For urologists, SoMe can lead to research collaborations, networking and educational content but areas of concern include the potential negative impact SoMe can have on mental health and sharing of patient images without appropriate consent. This review serves to provide an overview of the interaction between SoMe and urology practice and provide practical guidance to navigating it.
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.