ArticleAcademic pathology
Social media in pathology and laboratory medicine: A systematic review.
Article in Academic pathology. 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.
- Role of Scientific Societies in Continuing Education in Cytopathology: Present and Future Perspectives.Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology · 2026Review
- Blended and digital approaches in histology and pathology teaching: A scoping review.Anatomical sciences education · 2026Article
- Digitalization and Gamification to Improve Pathology Education: The SIAPeC Quiz Experience.Pathologica · 2026Article
- Editor-in-Chief's Commentary:Sage open pathologyArticle
- Pathology podcasts: a growing educational tool.Academic pathologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of social media platforms in pathology and medical laboratory science has increased in recent years, revolutionizing the way professionals in these fields interact, disseminate information, and collaborate. To gain an understanding of the current landscape regarding social media use in pathology and medical laboratory science, a novel systematic review was conducted. A search of PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Scopus was performed to identify articles evaluating social media use within pathology and medical laboratory science. Articles published in English within the previous 10 years were searched on December 22, 2022. Inclusion criteria were articles containing information regarding social media utility in pathology or laboratory medicine and related articles that mentioned specific hashtags for pathology. The review process involved analyzing the social media platforms referenced, hashtags mentioned, and the presence of international authors as key endpoints of interest. 802 publications were identified; 54 studies met inclusion criteria. Subspecialties represented were considered, but none were found to be statistically significant. X/Twitter (n = 42) was the most discussed social media platform. The top hashtags discussed were #pathJC (5.1%), #dermpathJC (4.2%), #USCAP2016 (3.4%), and #PathBoards (3.4%). Analysis of these articles provides insights into current trends, including the social media platforms referenced, hashtags used, and involvement of international authors. This review will contribute to a deeper understanding of the role and impact of social media in these fields, highlighting opportunities and challenges for future research and practice in pathology and lab medicine.
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.