Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40009378›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2025

Social Media Posts About Medical Tests With Potential for Overdiagnosis.

Brooke Nickel, Ray Moynihan, Emma Grundtvig Gram, Tessa Copp, Melody Taba, Patti Shih, Raffael Heiss, Mingyao Gao, Joshua R Zadro

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Brooke NickelSydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Ray MoynihanWiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Emma Grundtvig GramCenter for General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Tessa CoppSydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Melody TabaSydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Patti ShihWiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Raffael HeissCenter for Social & Health Innovation, Management Centre Innsbruk-The Entrepreneurial School, Innsbruk, Austria.
Mingyao GaoSydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Joshua R ZadroWiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Medical OveruseOverdiagnosisSocial MediaCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID40009378
PMCPMC11866028

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.