ArticleNeurourology and urodynamics2026
Social Media as a Source of Information on Interstitial Cystitis/Bladder Pain Syndrome: Support Tool or Misinformation?
Article in Neurourology and urodynamics, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate which social media platforms are most frequently used by women with interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome and to assess the scientific reliability of the information shared online. MATERIALS AND
methodsA cross-sectional analysis was conducted on publicly available posts published on Instagram, Facebook, X, YouTube, and TikTok. Only posts containing informative content were included. Spam, duplicated posts, and advertisements were excluded. Two expert urogynecologists independently assessed the scientific accuracy of each post, classifying them as containing scientific evidence, containing scientifically correct but alarming information, or lacking scientific evidence. For each post, authorship type, thematic category, and user engagement were recorded. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using the Kappa statistic.
resultsOne hundred and forty-six posts were included: 59 on Instagram, 72 on Facebook, 9 on YouTube, 4 on X, and 2 on TikTok. Most Instagram posts were published by healthcare professionals, while Facebook posts were predominantly published by patients. On Instagram, the most frequent topic was awareness, whereas diagnostic and therapeutic discussions were more common on Facebook. A minority of posts contained scientifically validated information. Instagram generated the highest user engagement. Agreement between reviewers was low for patient-generated content but higher for posts focused on diagnosis and treatment.
conclusionsInstagram is mainly used by healthcare professionals to raise awareness, whereas Facebook functions as a patient-driven space for discussion. The majority of posts lacked scientific accuracy, underscoring the need for healthcare professionals to strengthen their online presence to counter misinformation and support individuals seeking reliable information about bladder pain.
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.