ArticleJB & JS open access
Language Complexity Shapes Engagement with Orthopaedic Information on Social Media: A Prospective Analysis.
Article in JB & JS open access. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Social media is a significant source of medical information for patients, and strategies are needed to enhance the dissemination of accurate orthopaedic content. As prior literature demonstrates that patients prefer simplified language in clinical settings, evaluating the complexity of language in orthopaedic social media posts is crucial for improving online communication. Methods: Content from 31 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons patient education materials (PEMs) was posted on 2 separate social media accounts. One account shared the original PEMs, while the other posted simplified versions using a validated text simplification protocol that uses artificial intelligence. Engagement metrics, including views, likes, and time spent, were collected. Data were compared using paired t-tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Results: Original (complex) posts garnered 21,380 views compared with 21,682 views for simplified posts. Despite no significant difference in view counts (p = 0.49), original content received significantly more likes (average 39.58 vs. 22.83 per post, p = 0.003) and longer cumulative viewing time spent per post (86.04 vs. 58.91 minutes per post, p < 0.001). Spine-related posts were the most engaging, achieving the highest average views, likes, and time spent of all orthopaedic subspecialities. Conclusion: More detailed, complex orthopaedic content garnered higher total likes and longer time spent with posts. Spine-related posts were the most engaging, suggesting social media trends mirror relative clinical prevalence. These findings highlight the importance of striking a balance between content complexity and accessibility to effectively disseminate orthopaedic information on social media platforms. Level of Evidence: Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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.