ArticleJournal of neuro-oncology2025
Missing the message to brain tumor patients: a 2023 twitter analysis among patients, informal caregivers, and healthcare professionals in glioblastoma multiforme.
Article in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSocial media platforms, particularly Twitter (X), play an important role in healthcare communication by sharing information and personal disease experiences. We investigated glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) posting behaviors on Twitter by comparing patient and informal caregiver tweets to healthcare professional tweets.
methodsUsing Keyhole, a third-party analytics tool, we analyzed 1,639 tweets containing the keyword "#glioblastoma" from January 1 to December 31, 2023. Users were categorized as patients, informal caregivers, or healthcare professionals. We employed Generalized Estimating Equation models and multinomial distributions to compare sentiment, thematic, and frequency engagement patterns across stakeholder groups.
resultsInformal caregivers produced the slight majority of tweets (51.6%), followed by healthcare professionals (39.0%). Informal caregivers expressed significantly more negative sentiments (relative to neutral ones) than healthcare professionals (p < 0.001). Thematic analysis revealed that patients (p < 0.001) and informal caregivers (p < 0.001) engaged in more emotional support than healthcare professionals. Healthcare professionals were more likely than patients (p < 0.001) and informal caregivers (p < 0.001) to self-promote. Patients (p < 0.001) and informal caregivers (p < 0.001) tweeted more on survival/mortality than healthcare professionals. Additionally, patients (p < 0.001) and informal caregivers (p < 0.001) had a higher average posting frequency per user than healthcare professionals.
conclusionOur findings indicate that GBM patients and informal caregivers were more likely to discuss emotional aspects of GBM care, while healthcare professionals had more informational and professional motives. Healthcare professionals who address these emotional, social, and financial communication disconnects can make their social media engagement more meaningful to patients who are often at least one of the primary targets of these accounts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39899179What 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.