Tweeting links to Cochrane Schizophrenia Group reviews: a randomised controlled trial

Controlled experiment finds no detectable citation bump from Twitter promotion

Multiple studies across a variety of scientific disciplines have shown that the number of times that a paper is shared on Twitter (now called X) is correlated with the number of citations that paper receives. However, these studies were not designed to answer whether tweeting about scientific papers causes an increase in citations, or whether they were simply highlighting that some papers have higher relevance, importance or quality and are therefore both tweeted about more and cited more. The authors of this study are leading science communicators on Twitter from several life science disciplines, with substantially higher follower counts than the average scientist, making us uniquely placed to address this question. We conducted a three-year-long controlled experiment, randomly selecting five articles published in the same month and journal, and randomly tweeting one while retaining the others as controls. This process was repeated for 10 articles from each of 11 journals, recording Altmetric scores, number of tweets, and citation counts before and after tweeting. Randomization tests revealed that tweeted articles were downloaded 2.6-3.9 times more often than controls immediately after tweeting, and retained significantly higher Altmetric scores (+81%) and number of tweets (+105%) three years after tweeting. However, while some tweeted papers were cited more than their respective control papers published in the same journal and month, the overall increase in citation counts after three years (+7% for Web of Science and +12% for Google Scholar) was not statistically significant (p > 0.15). Therefore while discussing science on social media has many professional and societal benefits (and has been a lot of fun), increasing the citation rate of a scientist's papers is likely not among them.

Protocol for surgical and non-surgical treatment for metacarpal shaft fractures in adults: an observational feasibility study

INTRODUCTION

Metacarpal shaft fractures (MSF) are common traumatic hand injuries that usually affect young people of working age. They place a significant burden on healthcare resources and society; however, there is a lack of evidence to guide their treatment. Identifying the most beneficial and cost-efficient treatment will ensure optimisation of care and provide economic value for the National Health Service. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial comparing surgical and non-surgical treatment for MSF in adults.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a multicentre prospective cohort study, with a nested qualitative study consisting of patient interviews and focus groups, and an embedded factorial randomised substudy evaluating the use of text messages to maximise data collection and participant retention. The outcomes of interest include eligibility, recruitment and retention rates, completion of follow-up, evaluation of primary outcome measures, calculation of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for selected outcome measures and establishing the feasibility of data collection methods and appropriate time-points for use in a future trial. Data will be captured using a secure online data management system. Data analyses will be descriptive and a thematic inductive analysis will be used for qualitative data. Minimum clinically important effects for each patient-reported outcome measure will be estimated using anchor-based responsiveness statistics and distribution-based methods.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has received ethical approval from the Research Ethics Committee and the Health Research Authority (REC reference 20/EE/0124). Results will be made available to patients, clinicians, researchers and the funder via peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. Social media platforms, local media and feedback from the Patient Advisory Group will be used to maximise circulation of findings to patients and the public.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN13922779.

The role of Twitter in dental education: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The rapid growth of social media in recent years has highlighted uses beyond their original purposes, particularly in education. Twitter is a free, open access social network with high potential to enhance interactive learning. The use of Twitter in dental education has been far less investigated; therefore, the objective of this systematic review is to explore the current uses and to examine the impact of Twitter on dental education, and to analyze and predict potential models of Twitter for future application in dental training, education, and teaching.

METHODS

Five databases (PubMed, Embase, Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science) and the gray literature using keywords related to Twitter and dental education were searched. Articles were screened for inclusion, and two researchers independently extracted the data using a standardized data collection template and analyzed the quality of the included articles using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument.

RESULTS

Of the 121 articles identified from the initial search, 68 remained after duplications were removed. Article screening removed 61 articles leaving 7 eligible for inclusion and data extraction. Five studies were cross-sectional and two were cohort studies, and all involved survey-based designs with 998 respondents in total. Quality assessment gave a score range between 8 and 12.5 out of a total of 18 points.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study supports the potential for Twitter as a useful learning tool in dental education. Features, including the open access nature of Twitter as well as the low level of ads and free registration, make it appealing to students as well as a useful tool for interactive learning. However, there are significant barriers to its use, including privacy and concerns about professionalism. Higher quality and greater impact research is required.

If I tweet will you cite later? Follow-up on the effect of social media exposure on article downloads and citations

OBJECTIVES

We previously reported that random assignment of scientific articles to a social media exposure intervention did not have an effect on article downloads and citations. In this paper, we investigate whether longer observation time after exposure to a social media intervention has altered the previously reported results.

METHODS

For articles published in the International Journal of Public Health between December 2012 and December 2014, we updated article download and citation data for a minimum of 24-month follow-up. We re-analysed the effect of social media exposure on article downloads and citations.

RESULTS

There was no difference between intervention and control group in terms of downloads (p = 0.72) and citations (p= 0.30) for all papers and when we stratified by open access status.

CONCLUSIONS

Longer observation time did not increase the relative differences in the numbers of downloads and citations between papers in the social media intervention group and papers in the control group. Traditional impact metrics based on citations, such as impact factor, may not capture the added value of social media for scientific publications.

Adding evidence of the effects of treatments into relevant Wikipedia pages: a randomised trial

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effects of adding high-grade quantitative evidence of outcomes of treatments into relevant Wikipedia pages on further information-seeking behaviour by the use of routinely collected data.

SETTING

Wikipedia, Cochrane summary pages and the Cochrane Library.

DESIGN

Randomised trial.

PARTICIPANTS

Wikipedia pages which were highly relevant to up-to-date Cochrane Schizophrenia systematic reviews that contained a Summary of Findings table.

INTERVENTIONS

Eligible Wikipedia pages in the intervention group were seeded with tables of best evidence of the effects of care and hyperlinks to the source Cochrane review. Eligible Wikipedia pages in the control group were left unchanged.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Routinely collected data on access to the full text and summary web page (after 12 months).

RESULTS

We randomised 70 Wikipedia pages (100% follow-up). Six of the 35 Wikipedia pages in the intervention group had the tabular format deleted during the study but all pages continued to report the same data within the text. There was no evidence of effect on either of the coprimary outcomes: full-text access adjusted ratio of geometric means 1.30, 95% CI: 0.71 to 2.38; page views 1.14, 95% CI: 0.6 to 2.13. Results were similar for all other outcomes, with exception of Altmetric score for which there was some evidence of clear effect (1.36, 95% CI: 1.05 to 1.78).

CONCLUSIONS

The pursuit of fair balance within Wikipedia healthcare pages is impressive and its reach unsurpassed. For every person who sought and clicked the reference on the 'intervention' Wikipedia page to seek more information (the primary outcome), many more are likely to have been informed by the page alone. Enriching Wikipedia content is, potentially, a powerful way to improve health literacy and it is possible to test the effects of seeding pages with evidence. This trial should be replicated, expanded and developed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

IRCT2017070330407N2.

To tweet or not to tweet, that is the question: A randomized trial of Twitter effects in medical education

Introduction

Many medical education journals use Twitter to garner attention for their articles. The purpose of this study was to test the effects of tweeting on article page views and downloads.

Methods

The authors conducted a randomized trial using Academic Medicine articles published in 2015. Beginning in February through May 2018, one article per day was randomly assigned to a Twitter (case) or control group. Daily, an individual tweet was generated for each article in the Twitter group that included the title, #MedEd, and a link to the article. The link delivered users to the article’s landing page, which included immediate access to the HTML full text and a PDF link. The authors extracted HTML page views and PDF downloads from the publisher. To assess differences in page views and downloads between cases and controls, a time-centered approach was used, with outcomes measured at 1, 7, and 30 days.

Results

In total, 189 articles (94 cases, 95 controls) were analyzed. After days 1 and 7, there were no statistically significant differences between cases and controls on any metric. On day 30, HTML page views exhibited a 63% increase for cases (M = 14.72, SD = 63.68) when compared to controls (M = 9.01, SD = 14.34; incident rate ratio = 1.63, p = 0.01). There were no differences between cases and controls for PDF downloads on day 30.

Discussion

Contrary to the authors’ hypothesis, only one statistically significant difference in page views between the Twitter and control groups was found. These findings provide preliminary evidence that after 30 days a tweet can have a small positive effect on article page views.

Who should you be following? The top 100 social media influencers in orthopaedic surgery

BACKGROUND

Social media has been credited with the potential to transform medicine, and Twitter was recently named “an essential tool” for the academic surgeon. Despite this, peer-to-peer and educational influence on social media has not been studied within orthopaedic surgery. This knowledge is important to identify who is controlling the conversation about orthopaedics to the public. We hypothesized that the plurality of top influencers would be sports medicine surgeons, that social media influence would not be disconnected from academic productivity, and that some of the top social media influencers in orthopaedic surgery would not be orthopaedic surgeons.

AIM

To identify the top 100 social media influencers within orthopaedics, characterize who they are, and relate their social media influence to academic influence.

METHODS

Twitter influence scores for the topic “orthopaedics” were collected in July 2018 using Right Relevance software. The accounts with the top influence scores were linked to individual names, and the account owners were characterized with respect to specialty, subspecialty, practice setting, location, board certification, and academic Hirsch index (h-index).

RESULTS

Seventy-eight percent of top influencers were orthopaedic surgeons. The most common locations included California (13%), Florida (8%), New York (7%), United Kingdom (7%), Colorado (6%), and Minnesota (6%). The mean academic h-index of the top influencers (n = 79) was 13.67 ± 4.12 (mean ± 95%CI) and median 7 (range 1-89) (median reported h-index of academic orthopaedic faculty is 5 and orthopaedic chairpersons is 13). Of the 78 orthopaedic surgeons, the most common subspecialties were sports medicine (54%), hand and upper extremity (18%), and spine (8%). Most influencers worked in private practice (53%), followed by academics (17%), privademics (14%), and hospital-based (9%). All eligible orthopaedic surgeons with publicly-verifiable board certification statuses were board-certified (n = 74).

CONCLUSION

The top orthopaedic social media influencers on Twitter were predominantly board-certified, sports-medicine subspecialists working in private practice in the United States. Social media influence was highly concordant with academic productivity as measured by the academic h-index. Though the majority of influencers are orthopaedic surgeons, 22% of top influencers on Twitter are not, which is important to identify given the potential for these individuals to influence patients’ perceptions and expectations. This study also provides the top influencer network for other orthopaedic surgeons to engage with on social media to improve their own social media influence.

#BJPsych and social media - likes, followers and leading?

This article explores the growing interface between social media and academic publishing. We discuss how the British Journal of Psychiatry (BJPsych) and other scientific journals are engaging with social media to communicate in a digital world. A growing body of evidence suggests that public visibility and constructive conversation on social media networks can be beneficial for researchers and clinicians, influencing research in a number of key ways. This engagement presents new opportunities for more widely disseminating information, but also carries risks. We note future prospects and ask where BJPsych should strategically place itself in this rapidly changing environment.Declaration of interestJ.R.H., J.F.H. and D.T. are on the editorial board of the BJPsych. D.T. runs its social media arm.

Day of the week to tweet: a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of using health social media on different days of the working week on web activity.

DESIGN

Individually randomised controlled parallel group superiority trial.

SETTING

Twitter and Weibo.

PARTICIPANTS

194 Cochrane Schizophrenia Group full reviews with an abstract and plain language summary web page. There were no human participants.

INTERVENTIONS

Three randomly ordered slightly different messages (maximum of 140 characters), each containing a short URL to the freely accessible summary page, were sent on specific times on a single day. Each of these messages sent on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday was compared with the one sent on Monday.

OUTCOME

The primary outcome was visits to the relevant Cochrane summary web page at 1 week. Secondary outcomes were other metrics of web activity at 1 week.

RESULTS

There was no evidence that disseminating microblogs on different days of the working week resulted in any differences in target website activity as measured by Google Analytics (n=194, all page views, adjusted ratios of geometric means 0.86 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.18), 0.88 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.21), 0.88 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.21), 0.91 (95% CI 0.66 to 1.24) for Tuesday-Friday, respectively, overall p=0.89). There were consistent findings for all outcomes. However, activity on the review site substantially increased compared with weeks preceding the intervention.

CONCLUSION

There are no clear differences in the effect when 1 weekday is compared with another, but our study suggests that using microblogging social media such as Twitter and Weibo do increase information-seeking behaviour on health. Tweet any day but do Tweet.

Social Media Engagement and the Critical Care Medicine Community

Over the last decade, social media has transformed how we communicate in the medical community. Microblogging through platforms such as Twitter has made social media a vehicle for succinct, targeted, and innovative dissemination of content in critical care medicine. Common uses of social media in medicine include dissemination of information, knowledge acquisition, professional networking, and patient advocacy. Social media engagement at conferences represents all of these categories and is often the first time health-care providers are introduced to Twitter. Most of the major critical care medicine conferences, journals, and societies leverage social media for education, research, and advocacy, and social media users can tailor the inflow of content based on their own interests. From these interactions, networks and communities are built within critical care medicine and beyond, overcoming the barriers of physical proximity. In this review, we summarize the history and current status of health-care social media as it relates to critical care medicine and provide a primer for those new to health-care social media with a focus on Twitter, one of the most popular microblogging platforms.

Social Media for the Dissemination of Cochrane Child Health Evidence: Evaluation Study

Background

Health care providers value ready access to reliable synthesized information to support point-of-care decision making. Web-based communities, facilitated by the adoption of social media tools such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, are increasingly being used for knowledge dissemination, bridging the gap between knowledge generation and synthesis and knowledge implementation.

Objective

Our objective was to implement and evaluate a structured social media strategy, using multiple platforms, to disseminate Cochrane Child Health evidence to health care providers caring for children.

Methods

Our social media strategy had three components: daily “tweets” using the Cochrane Child Health Twitter account, weekly WordPress blog posts, and a monthly journal club on Twitter (“tweet chat”). Each tweet, blog, and journal club shared Cochrane evidence on a child health topic. We evaluated the strategy through (1) Twitter and blog site analytics, (2) traceable link (Bitly) statistics, (3) Altmetric.com scores for promoted evidence, and (4) participant feedback. We also tracked the resources required to write the blog, tweet content, and manage the strategy.

Results

The 22-week social media strategy ran between November 2014 and April 2015. We created 25 blog posts, sent 585 tweets, and hosted 3 tweet chats. Monthly blog visits and views and Twitter account followers increased over time. During the study period, the blog received 2555 visitors and 3967 page views from a geographically diverse audience of health care providers, academics, and health care organizations. In total, 183 traceable Bitly links received 3463 clicks, and the Twitter account gained 469 new followers. The most visited and viewed blog posts included gastrointestinal topics (lactose avoidance), research on respiratory conditions (honey for cough and treatments for asthma), and maternal newborn care (skin-to-skin contact). On Twitter, popular topics were related to public health (vaccination) and pain management. We collected Altmetric.com scores for 61 studies promoted during the study period and recorded an average increase of 11 points. Research staff (n=3) contributed approximately 433 hours to promotion activities and planning (6.5 hours each per week) to implement the social media strategy, and study investigators reviewed all content (blog posts and tweets).

Conclusions

This study provides empirical evidence on the use of a coordinated social media strategy for the dissemination of evidence to professionals providing health services to children and youth. The results and lessons learned from our study provide guidance for future knowledge dissemination activities using social media tools.

[Activities using websites and social networks: tools and indicators for evaluation]

In the field of health, information and communication technology (ICT) can create a space that, regardless of place or time, enables information to be shared and disseminated quickly. In addition to the usual challenges of evaluating public health activities, other difficulties are present when evaluating activities using ICT, such as lack of previous standards, unknown individual exposure or lack of information on the characteristics of those exposed. The aim of this paper is to describe some tools and indicators that may help to assess the scope, use and parameters related to website positioning on search engines as well as the connected social networks.

RevManHAL: towards automatic text generation in systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews are a key part of healthcare evaluation. They involve important painstaking but repetitive work. A major producer of systematic reviews, the Cochrane Collaboration, employs Review Manager (RevMan) programme-a software which assists reviewers and produces XML-structured files. This paper describes an add-on programme (RevManHAL) which helps auto-generate the abstract, results and discussion sections of RevMan-generated reviews in multiple languages. The paper also describes future developments for RevManHAL.

METHODS

RevManHAL was created in Java using NetBeans by a programmer working full time for 2 months.

RESULTS

The resulting open-source programme uses editable phrase banks to envelop text/numbers from within the prepared RevMan file in formatted readable text of a chosen language. In this way, considerable parts of the review's 'abstract', 'results' and 'discussion' sections are created and a phrase added to 'acknowledgements'.

CONCLUSION

RevManHAL's output needs to be checked by reviewers, but already, from our experience within the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group (200 maintained reviews, 900 reviewers), RevManHAL has saved much time which is better employed thinking about the meaning of the data rather than restating them. Many more functions will become possible as review writing becomes increasingly automated.

Twittering on about mental health: is it worth the effort?

The medical community disseminates information increasingly using social media. Randomised controlled trials are being conducted in this area to evaluate effectiveness of social media with mixed results so far, but more trials are likely to be published in the coming years. One recent twitter randomised control trial using Cochrane Schizophrenia Group reviews suggests that tweets increase the hits to the target web page by about threefold and time spent on the web page is also increased threefold when referrals come in via twitter. These are early findings and need further replication. Twitter appeals to professionals, entertainers and politicians among others as a means of networking with peers and connecting with the wider public. Twitter, in particular, seems to be well placed for use by the medical community and is effective in promoting messages, updating information, interacting with each other locally and internationally and more so during conferences. Twitter is also increasingly used to disseminate evidence in addition to traditional media such as academic peer-reviewed journals. Caution is required using twitter as inadvertent tweets can lead to censure. Overall, the use of twitter responsibly by the medical community will increase visibility of research findings and ensure up to date evidence is readily accessible. This should open the door for further trials of different social media platforms to evaluate their effectiveness in disseminating accurate high-quality information instantaneously to a global audience.