ArticleCureus2026
Between Likes and Ethics: Benefits and Challenges of Social Media Use in Medical Practice in a Pre- and Post-intervention Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSocial media use among medical students is nearly universal, yet it often occurs without adequate ethical-legal literacy, particularly considering the update introduced by Resolution No. 2,336/2023 of the Brazilian Federal Council of Medicine (Conselho Federal de Medicina, CFM). This study assessed medical students' knowledge and perceptions of the benefits, risks, and ethical limits of social media use before and after an educational intervention based on practical scenarios grounded in that resolution. METHODOLOGY: This was a quasi-experimental study with a paired pre- and post-test design. An electronic questionnaire containing 15 practical scenarios rated on a five-point Likert scale (13 forming the ethical adequacy score and two assessing institutional/curricular perceptions) was administered to students from the first through the twelfth semester. After excluding colliding pairing codes, 101 valid matched pairs were analyzed. Unethical responses were reverse-scored to build an ethical adequacy score, compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (primary analysis, given a deviation from normality) and a paired Student's t-test (sensitivity analysis).
resultsThe overall ethical adequacy score rose from a mean of 3.40 (standard deviation (SD) 0.40) to 3.95 (SD 0.42) after the workshop (
conclusionsScenario-based interventions are effective in raising ethical adequacy in the short term, but they require monitoring for interpretive side effects and should be complemented by continuous curricular training.
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.