ArticleJAMA network open2025
Social Media Posts About Medical Tests With Potential for Overdiagnosis.
Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- [Social media in anesthesiology: a systematic review on typology as well as opportunities and risks].Die Anaesthesiologie · 2026Pooled it
- What Endocrinologists Should Know About Iodine: Population Deficiency, Individual Excess and Misinformation in the United Kingdom.Clinical endocrinology · 2026Review
- Beyond the hashtag: a content analysis of #womenshealth posts on Instagram.Health promotion international · 2026Article
- The Online Market for Healthcare Self-Testing Kits: Benefits, Risks and Media Representation in the United Kingdom.Public health challenges · 2026Article
- Patients' Experiences of Outcome Expectations in Renal Denervation: A Qualitative Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A content analysis of the characteristics of the popular mental health podcasts.Health education research · 2026Article
- It depends on where you stand on screening: health professionals' awareness, perspectives, and approaches to overdiagnosis in cancer screening - a qualitative interview study.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Multi-cancer early detection tests: national estimates of awareness and perceived value in the United States.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
- The illusion of empowerment: commercializing women's health in the digital age.Health promotion international · 2026Article
- Virality versus veracity: A systematic review of TikTok information on prenatal aneuploidy testing.Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Prescription Drug Promotion by Social Media Influencers: A Systematic Scoping Review.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Article
- Trust is a verb: how to reimagine confidence in health systems.Health promotion international · 2026Article
- Communication features of ChatGPT responses and care-seeking intention for syphilis in Japan: a controlled dialogue experiment.Journal of rural medicine : JRM · 2026Article
- Quality evaluation of stroke-related information on TikTok: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Addressing misleading medical information on social media: a scoping review of current interventions.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2025Article
- Fear and Medical Misinformation Regarding Risk of Progression or Recurrence Among Patients with Breast Cancer.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- The perils of politeness: how large language models may amplify medical misinformation.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Investigating the Association of Subjective Numeracy, Interpersonal Communication, and Perceived Discrimination With Watching Health-Related Videos on Social Media Platforms: Cross-Sectional Analysis.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- [Misinformation and disinformation about dietary supplements in social media: limiting the risks, seizing the opportunities, and shaping structures].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Social media is an influential source of medical information, but little is known about how posts discuss medical tests that carry potential for overdiagnosis or overuse. Objective: To investigate how social media posts discuss 5 popular medical tests: full-body magnetic resonance imaging, the multicancer early detection test, and tests for antimullerian hormone, gut microbiome, and testosterone. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study assessed posts on Instagram and TikTok between April 30, 2015, and January 23, 2024, that discussed full-body magnetic resonance imaging, the multicancer early detection test, and tests for antimullerian hormone, gut microbiome, and testosterone. Using keywords on newly created accounts, posts were searched and screened until 100 posts for each test on each platform were identified (n = 1000). Posts were excluded if they did not discuss 1 of the 5 tests or were not in English or if the account holders had fewer than 1000 followers. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was information about benefits, harms, and overall tone discussed in the post. All outcomes were summarized descriptively. Logistic regression was used to assess whether the use of evidence or the account holder being a physician or having financial interests influenced how tests were discussed. Results: A total of 982 posts from account holders with a combined 194 200 000 followers were analyzed. Across all tests, benefits were mentioned in 855 posts (87.1%) and harms in 144 (14.7%), with 60 (6.1%) mentioning overdiagnosis or overuse. Overall, 823 posts (83.8%) had a promotional (vs neutral or negative) tone. Evidence was explicitly used in 63 posts (6.4%), personal anecdotes were used in 333 (33.9%), 498 posts (50.7%) encouraged viewers to take action and get the test, and 668 account holders (68.0%) had financial interests. Posts from physicians were more likely to mention harms (odds ratio, 4.49; 95% CI, 2.85-7.06) and less likely to have an overall promotional tone (odds ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.35-0.80). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of social media posts about 5 popular medical tests, most posts were misleading or failed to mention important harms, including overdiagnosis or overuse. These data demonstrate a need for stronger regulation of misleading medical information on social media.
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.