ArticlePLOS digital health2025
Social media strategies used to translate knowledge and disseminate clinical neuroscience information to healthcare users: A systematic review.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gaps in knowledge and prevention of kidney stone disease among Palestinian adults: findings from an online cross-sectional survey.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Exploring mental health literacy among information technology (IT) professionals: Twitter content analysis.PLOS digital health · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Social media can be an important source of clinical neuroscience information for healthcare users (e.g., patients, healthcare providers, the general public). This systematic review synthesized evidence on the effectiveness of social media strategies in translating knowledge and disseminating clinical neuroscience information to healthcare users. A systematic review of six electronic databases up to July 29, 2024 was conducted. Original, peer-reviewed articles examining the effectiveness of YouTube, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, social media messaging apps, or a combination of these platforms in translating clinical neuroscience information to healthcare users (e.g., patients, healthcare providers, caregivers, and the general public) were eligible for inclusion. Several proxies (e.g., change in uptake of research, change in awareness, change in knowledge, change in understanding, behaviour change, and/or change in social media metrics) were considered as outcomes of knowledge translation (KT) effectiveness. Two independent reviewers screened articles and assessed risk of bias. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42021269034). A total of six studies were included in this review. The included studies used YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, or a combination of social media platforms aimed at healthcare users. Most social media strategies used to disseminate clinical neuroscience information in the included studies (N = 5/6) resulted in improved indicators of KT. However, due to the high risk of bias among the included studies, these results must be interpreted with caution. Disseminating clinical neuroscience information via Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, or a combination of these platforms may achieve the goals of KT. However, there is currently a gap in the literature about clinical neuroscience KT via social media, both in the quantity of studies and quality of evidence. Future research should aim to minimize the risk of bias by controlling for important confounding factors and use objective measures of KT to complement subjective measures.
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.