ArticleJournal of adolescent and young adult oncology2025
A Content Analysis of #Childhoodcancer Chatter on X.
Article in Journal of adolescent and young adult oncology, 2025. 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
Abstract
Over a half million children are living with cancer in the United States. Social media platforms offer unique opportunities for cancer communication by public health organizations as well as health care providers, scientists, patients, and caregivers. Given the dearth of research on childhood cancer communication, the present study aimed to examine the nature of tweets on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) that used the hashtag #childhoodcancer, the types of these tweets that attracted the most retweets, the types of users tweeting about childhood cancer (e.g., individuals, health care professionals), and the nature of tweets made by the different types of users. We performed a content analysis of tweets we captured on X via NCapture in October and December 2022. Of the 3217 tweets captured, we randomly sampled 1000 eligible tweets and manually double-coded them. Interrater agreement was 83% (κ = 0.75). Results revealed six themes in the tweets, including fundraising (21.2%), advocacy (20.2%), motivational (17.5%), educational (15.3%), science (12.8%), and shout-outs (12.1%). Motivational, advocacy, and science tweets attracted more retweets than fundraising tweets and shout-outs (
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.