ReviewResuscitation plus2025
The use of social media platforms in adult basic life support research: a scoping review.
Review in Resuscitation plus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 2025 Korean Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: Part 10. Education and system implementation for enhanced chain of survival.Clinical and experimental emergency medicine · 2026Guideline
- Mandatory First-Aid Training in the Workplace: An Epidemiological Assessment of the Use of Acetylsalicylic Acid Therapy.Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- CPR emojis and stickers - Additional pieces of the BLS awareness puzzle.Resuscitation plus · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Social media (SoMe) is expanding globally, with increasing adoption in research, including resuscitation science. Its widespread reach and growing influence make it a valuable tool for research and knowledge dissemination. We aimed to assess the utilization of SoMe, highlight its applications, and identify future research areas, specifically in data collection and analysis, education and training, and professional networking and collaboration. Methods: Embase, Scopus, and PubMed were searched through October 30th, 2024. Titles and abstracts were screened, and duplicates removed. The PCC (Population, Concept, and Context) framework defined the population as SoMe users, the concept as adult BLS-related content, and the context as SoMe platforms used for data analysis, data collection, teaching, campaigns, communication, and sharing, excluding traditional media. Results: The search yielded 5,427 articles, with 201 undergoing full-text review and 42 included. Most studies were from high-income countries (19/42; 45%) and had a cross-sectional design (16/42; 36%). SoMe was primarily used for data analysis (17/42; 41%) and data collection (16/42; 36%). YouTube and X were the frequently applied SoMe platforms (12 studies each; 29%), while Instagram and WhatsApp supported diverse applications. In contrast, Snapchat and TikTok were used less frequently and for narrower purposes. Conclusions: Existing studies focus on data collection and analysis, mainly via YouTube and X, but inconsistencies in design and geography call for standardized reporting to enhance comparability and impact. Future studies could standardize reporting on SoMe applications in adult BLS using established frameworks to ensure comparability and effectiveness.
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.