ArticleInternational ophthalmology2025
Association of Twitter author Altmetric patterns with research impact in ophthalmology.
Article in International ophthalmology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTwitter has become increasingly popular within academia due to ease of use in disseminating accurate medical information, networking with colleagues, and promoting research. Given the rapidly increasing presence of ophthalmologists on social media platforms, we determined how Twitter patterns amongst authors, institutions, and journals affects the academic impact of ophthalmology research articles.
methodsData from 1086 research articles in the top 7 ophthalmology journals as determined by SCimago Journal Rank (SJR) was recorded for 2021 issues. Article citations, article captures, and Twitter metrics were retrospectively recorded using the Scopus database and PlumX Metrics on Scopus.
resultsThe number of citations and captures original research articles received had a significant positive correlation with the total tweets and retweets in general as well as self-tweets by authors of the article (p < 0.0001). Furthermore, articles tweeted by at least one author had a 1.7 fold increase in citations (p = 0.0012). While there was no significant effect on citations when a senior author or middle author tweeted about the publication, we observed a significantly greater number of citations when a first author tweeted about the publication (p = 0.0329). Both the author's affiliated institution and the journal tweeting about a publication were associated with more citations for that article (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0025, respectively) and captures for that article (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0025, respectively). DISCUSSIONS: Twitter mentions of ophthalmology articles may reflect their future academic impact. Authors of recent ophthalmology publications, ophthalmology journals, academic institutions may benefit from promoting research articles on Twitter to increase visibility and citations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40167899What 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.