ArticlePublic health nutrition2025
Content quality versus sharing practices on social media: a cross-sectional analysis of nutrition information on Twitter.
Article in Public health nutrition, 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.
- Evaluation of an AI-Supported Nutrition Application (WiseFood) in a Living Lab Context: Protocol for a User Needs Assessment, Co-Design, and Feasibility Testing.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a tool for detecting misinformation risk in diet, nutrition, and health content (Diet-MisRAT).Scientific reports · 2026Article
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
objectiveTo use the validated Online Quality Assessment Tool (OQAT) to assess the quality of online nutrition information.
settingThe social networking platform was formerly known as Twitter (now X).
designUtilising the Twitter search application programming interface (API; v1·1), all tweets that included the word 'nutrition', along with associated metadata, were collected on seven randomly selected days in 2021. Tweets were screened, those without a URL were removed and the remainder were grouped on retweet status. Articles (shared via URL) were assessed using the OQAT, and quality levels were assigned (low, satisfactory, high). Mean differences between retweeted and non-retweeted data were assessed by the Mann-Whitney
resultsIn total, 10 573 URL were collected from 18 230 tweets. After screening for relevance, 1005 articles were assessed (9568 were out of scope) sourced from professional blogs (
conclusionsLower-quality nutrition articles were more likely to be retweeted. Caution is required when using or sharing articles, particularly from companies and personal blogs, which tend to be lower-quality sources of nutritional information.
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.