The impact of social media on citation rates in coloproctology

Current insights on social media as a tool for the dissemination of research and education in surgery: a narrative review

The purpose of our narrative review is to summarize the utilization of social media (SoMe) platforms for research communication within the field of surgery. We searched the PubMed database for articles in the last decade that discuss the utilization of SoMe in surgery and then categorized the diverse purposes of SoMe. SoMe proved to be a powerful tool for disseminating articles. Employing strategic methods like visual abstracts enhances article citation rates, the impact factor, h-index, and Altmetric score (an emerging alternative metric that comprehensively and instantly quantifies the social impact of scientific papers). SoMe also proved valuable for surgical education, with online videos shared widely for surgical training. However, it is essential to acknowledge the associated risk of inconsistency in quality. Moreover, SoMe facilitates discussion on specific topics through hashtags or closed groups and is instrumental in recruiting surgeons, with over half of general surgery residency programs in the US efficiently leveraging these platforms to attract the attention of potential candidates. Thus, there is a wealth of evidence supporting the effective use of SoMe for surgeons. In the contemporary era where SoMe is widely utilized, surgeons should be well-versed in this evidence.

Examining the Effectiveness of Social Media for the Dissemination of Research Evidence for Health and Social Care Practitioners: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Social media use has potential to facilitate the rapid dissemination of research evidence to busy health and social care practitioners.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to quantitatively synthesize evidence of the between- and within-group effectiveness of social media for dissemination of research evidence to health and social care practitioners. It also compared effectiveness between different social media platforms, formats, and strategies.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases for articles in English that were published between January 1, 2010, and January 10, 2023, and that evaluated social media interventions for disseminating research evidence to qualified, postregistration health and social care practitioners in measures of reach, engagement, direct dissemination, or impact. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were carried out by at least 2 independent reviewers. Meta-analyses of standardized pooled effects were carried out for between- and within-group effectiveness of social media and comparisons between platforms, formats, and strategies. Certainty of evidence for outcomes was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) framework.

RESULTS

In total, 50 mixed-quality articles that were heterogeneous in design and outcome were included (n=9, 18% were randomized controlled trials [RCTs]). Reach (measured in number of practitioners, impressions, or post views) was reported in 26 studies. Engagement (measured in likes or post interactions) was evaluated in 21 studies. Direct dissemination (measured in link clicks, article views, downloads, or altmetric attention score) was analyzed in 23 studies (8 RCTs). Impact (measured in citations or measures of thinking and practice) was reported in 13 studies. Included studies almost universally indicated effects in favor of social media interventions, although effect sizes varied. Cumulative evidence indicated moderate certainty of large and moderate between-group effects of social media interventions on direct dissemination (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.88; P=.02) and impact (SMD 0.76; P<.001). After social media interventions, cumulative evidence showed moderate certainty of large within-group effects on reach (SMD 1.99; P<.001), engagement (SMD 3.74; P<.001), and direct dissemination (SMD 0.82; P=.004) and low certainty of a small within-group effect on impacting thinking or practice (SMD 0.45; P=.02). There was also evidence for the effectiveness of using multiple social media platforms (including Twitter, subsequently rebranded X; and Facebook), images (particularly infographics), and intensive social media strategies with frequent, daily posts and involving influential others. No included studies tested the dissemination of research evidence to social care practitioners.

CONCLUSIONS

Social media was effective for disseminating research evidence to health care practitioners. More intense social media campaigns using specific platforms, formats, and strategies may be more effective than less intense interventions. Implications include recommendations for effective dissemination of research evidence to health care practitioners and further RCTs in this field, particularly investigating the dissemination of social care research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42022378793; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=378793.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/45684.

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.

The bibliometric and altmetric analysis of chronic traumatic encephalopathy research: how great is the impact?

Background

The study of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) has received great attention from academia and the general public. This study aims to analyze the research productivity on CTE and investigate the most discussed articles in academia and the general public by conducting bibliometric and altmetric analyses.

Methods

Data of articles were obtained from the Web of Science Core Databases and Altmetric Explore. VOSviewer and CiteSpace software were used to analyze and visualize the articles. The correlation between Altmetric attention scores (AAS) and citation counts were assessed by Spearman correlation coefficient.

Results

788 publications of CTE were eventually gathered and analyzed, and 100 articles with highest citation counts (Top-cited) and 100 articles with highest AASs (Top-AAS) were then identified. The keywords density map showed both the general public and the scientists were particularly interested in the risk factors and pathology of CTE, and scientists were interested in the causes and characteristics of neurodegenerative diseases while the public became increasingly concerned about the detection and prevention of CTE. By examining the shared characteristics of the 44 articles (High-High articles) that overlapped between Top-cited and Top-AAS articles, we identified certain traits that may potentially contribute to their high citation rates and high AASs. Besides, significant positive correlations with varied strength between AAS and citation were observed in the 788 articles, Top-cited, Top-AAS and High-High datasets.

Conclusion

This study is the first to link bibliometric and altmetric analyses for CTE publications, which may provide deeper understanding of the attention of the scientists and the general public pay to the study of CTE, and offer some guidance and inspiration for future CTE in the selection of research topics and directions.

Promotion of a neurosurgical academic journal on social media: a 1-year experience

BACKGROUND

Social media (SoMe) use, in all of its forms, has seen massively increased throughout the past two decades, including academic publishing. Many journals have established a SoMe presence, yet the influence of promotion of scientific publications on their visibility and impact remains poorly studied. The European Journal of Neurosurgery «Acta Neurochirurgica» has established its SoMe presence in form of a Twitter account that regularly promotes its publications. We aim to analyze the impact of this initial SoMe campaign on various alternative metrics (altmetrics).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all articles published in the journal Acta Neurochirurgica between May 1st, 2018, and April 30th, 2020, was performed. These articles were divided into a historical control group - containing the articles published between May 1st, 2018, and April 30th, 2019, when the SoMe campaign was not yet established - and into an intervention group. Several altmetrics were analyzed, along with website visits and PDF downloads per month.

RESULTS

In total, 784 articles published during the study period, 128 (16.3%) were promoted via Twitter. During the promotion period, 29.7% of published articles were promoted. Overall, the published articles reached a mean of 31.3 ± 50.5 website visits and 17.5 ± 31.25 PDF downloads per month. Comparing the two study periods, no statistically significant differences in website visits (26.91 ± 32.87 vs. 34.90 ± 61.08, p = 0.189) and PDF downloads (17.52 ± 31.25 vs. 15.33 ± 16.07, p = 0.276) were detected. However, overall compared to non-promoted articles, promoted articles were visited (48.9 ± 95.0 vs. 29.0 ± 37.0, p = 0.005) and downloaded significantly more (25.7 ± 66.7 vs. 16.6 ± 18.0, p = 0.045) when compared to those who were not promoted during the promotion period.

CONCLUSIONS

We report a 1-year initial experience with promotion of a general neurosurgical journal on Twitter. Our data suggest a clear benefit of promotion on article site visits and article downloads, although no single responsible element could be determined in terms of altmetrics. The impact of SoMe promotion on other metrics, including traditional bibliometrics such as citations and journal impact factor, remains to be determined.

The impact of a dedicated social media strategy on enhancing surgical education

PURPOSE

Social media (SoMe) is increasingly important in surgical education and may be necessary in the current learning environment. Whilst expanding in use and applications, few studies detail the impact of SoMe on measurable outcomes. The goal of this study was to quantify the impact of a dedicated SoMe strategy on engagement metrics for surgical research.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a peer-reviewed surgical journal's Twitter microblog platform (@ColorectalDis) was performed from 6/2015 to 4/2021. A formal SoMe strategy was introduced in September 2018. Data were stratified into 2 time periods: pre-intervention (6-2015 to 9-2018) and post-SoMe intervention (9-2018 to 4-2021). The main outcome was the impact of the SoMe strategy on user engagement with the Twitter platform, journal, and traditional journal metrics. Twitter Analytics and Twitonomy were used to analyse engagement.

RESULTS

From conception to analysis, the microblog published 1198 original tweets, generating 5 million impressions and 231,000 engagements. Increased account activity (increased tweets published per month-5.51 vs 28.79; p < 0.01) was associated with significant engagement growth, including new monthly followers (213 vs 38; p < 0.01) and interactions with posted articles (4,096,167 vs 269,152; p < 0.01). Article downloads increased twenty-fold post-SoMe intervention (210,449 vs 10,934; p < 0.01), with significant increases in traditional journal metrics of new subscribers (+11%), article submissions (+24%), and impact factor (+0.9) (all p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

SoMe directly impacts traditional journal metrics in surgical research. By examining the patterns of user engagement between SoMe and journal sites, the growing beneficial impact of a structured social media strategy and SoMe as an educational tool is demonstrated.

Does an Author's Social Media Presence Affect Dissemination of Spine Literature?

OBJECTIVE

Our study assesses the impact of an author's social media presence on citation rates and readership of spine literature.

METHODS

Altmetric database was queried for spine-related articles between 2016-2021; top 100 by Altmetric Attention Score(AAS) were assessed. Public profile presence, number of followers, number of posts, and promotion of articles were assessed for Twitter/Instagram. Social media profiles were identified by searching for the author's name followed by "Twitter" or "Instagram" on Google.com or searching each platform. Descriptive statistics assessed social media use and attention metrics. Negative binomial regression assessed presence/promotion/number of followers/number of posts on Twitter/Instagram as predictors of Dimensions citation rates/AAS/Mendeley reader counts, while accounting for time passed since publication.

RESULTS

Twitter promotion was noted for 9.0% of articles and Instagram promotion for 1.0%. Mean numbers of Twitter and Instagram followers were 447.9±1406.1(range 0-9079) and 173.2±1097.1(range 0-10700). Mean numbers of Twitter and Instagram posts were 411.6±1210.5 and 18.4±96.4, respectively. Dimensions citations ranged from 0-641, AAS from 79-2257, and Mendeley readers from 2-1854. Following negative binomial regression, Instagram presence was identified as a significant predictor of Mendeley readers(p=0.043), number of Twitter posts was a significant predictor of AAS(p=0.008). Additionally, Twitter presence was identified as a negative predictor of Mendeley Readers(p=0.005) and Twitter promotion was identified as a negative predictor of AAS (p=0.003).

CONCLUSION

Activity on Twitter and Instagram may have variable associations with altmetrics of literature visibility and readership but with citation rates. Interestingly, presence/promotion on Twitter predicted less attention/readership, while Instagram presence predicted higher Mendeley readership.

Measuring the impact of COVID-19 papers on the social web: an altmetric study

Purpose

The rapid spread and severity of the coronavirus (COVID-19) virus have prompted a spate of scholarly research that deals with the pandemic. The purpose of this study is to measure and assess the coverage of COVID-19 research on social media and the engagement of readers with COVID-19 research on social media outlets.

Design/methodology/approach

An altmetric analysis was carried out in three phases. The first focused on retrieving all papers related to COVID-19. Phase two of the research aimed to measure the presence of the retrieved papers on social media using altmetric application programming interface (API). The third phase aimed to measure Mendeley readership categories using Mendeley API to extract data of readership from Mendeley for each paper.

Findings

The study suggests that while social media platforms do not give accurate measures of the impact as given by citations, they can be used to portray the social impact of the scholarly outputs and indicate the effectiveness of COVID-19 research. The results confirm a positive correlation between the number of citations to articles in databases such as Scopus and the number of views on social media sites such as Mendeley and Twitter. The results of the current study indicated that social media could serve as an indicator of the number of citations of scientific articles.

Research limitations/implications

This study’s limitation is that the studied articles’ altmetrics performance was examined using only one of the altmetrics data service providers (altmetrics database). Hence, future research should explore altmetrics on the topic using more than one platform. Another limitation of the current research is that it did not explore the academic social media role in spreading fake information as the scope was limited to scholarly outputs on social media. The practical contribution of the current research is that it informs scholars about the impact of social media platforms on the spread and visibility of COVID-19 research. Also, it can help researchers better understand the importance of published COVID-19 research using social media.

Originality/value

This paper provides insight into the impact of COVID-19 research on social media. The paper helps to provide an understanding of how people engage with health research using altmetrics scores, which can be used as indicators of research performance.

Citation Analysis of the Journal of Bone Metabolism from Korean Citation Index, Web of Science, and Scopus

BACKGROUND

Nine years have passed since the Journal of Bone Metabolism (JBM) was launched as an English journal in 2012; it was finally included in Scopus in January 2019. Therefore, this study aimed to provide evidence of increased international recognition based on journal metrics and reflect on its efforts to be recognized as a top-notch journal.

METHODS

Databases, such as the Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, Korean Citation Index (KCI), and citation indicators, including the impact factor (IF) and SCImago journal rank (SJR) were reviewed and calculated according to years, and the results were drawn. Furthermore, country-wise contributions and top-cited articles were also investigated.

RESULTS

The JBM 2020 IF was 2.17 in the WoS. The 2020 SJR in Scopus was 0.334, with a ranking of 165/219 (75.3%) in the Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism category. The 2020 KCI was 0.42. Of 263 articles, 260 were citable (98.9%), and of 176 original articles, 15 (8.5%) were supported by research grants. The total citation of JBM has increased from 16 in 2014 to 141 in 2020; however, its KCI remained stationary from 0.29 in 2015 to 0.42 in 2020.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, JBM is increasingly cited by international researchers than Korean researchers, indicating that the journal's content is valued at an international level. Its inclusion in PubMed Central appears to have increased its international relevance; however, publishing English-only articles may hinder its use domestically. Therefore, efforts should be made to increase citation rates and enhance domestic readership.

Trabecular Bone Score Could Not Predict the Bone Mineral Density of Proximal Humerus

Background

Osteoporosis is an important clinical factor for tendon healing after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR). Conventional dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) of the hip and lumbar spine (LS) does not represent proximal humeral bone mineral density (BMD). Theoretically, direct measurement of the BMD of the proximal humerus is the best method; however, it is not popular and is non-standardized. Therefore, we evaluate whether the trabecular bone score (TBS) using LS DXA would represent proximal humeral BMD.

Methods

Conventional hip and LS DXA and proximal humeral BMD were measured in 212 consecutive ARCR patients, and TBS was calculated using LS DXA. Comparative analysis between the affected and contralateral asymptomatic shoulders was done; moreover, correlation analysis was conducted to evaluate the representativity of TBS for proximal humeral BMD. Regression analysis was performed to elucidate the risk factor of intraoperative suture anchor failure (ISAF).

Results

BMDs of the affected shoulder were significantly lower than those of the contralateral side (all P<0.05). TBS failed to present a strong correlation with proximal humeral BMD (correlation coefficients 0.155–0.506, all P<0.05), and the BMD of the greater tuberosity (GT) of the proximal humerus was revealed to be a sole risk factor for ISAF (odds ratio, 0.01, P=0.020).

Conclusions

TBS and conventional hip and LS DXA did not represent proximal humeral BMD. Furthermore, among the various radiological measurements, the BMD of the GT was a sole risk factor of ISAF. Therefore, further research for the direct measurement of proximal humeral BMD is mandatory to predict proximal humeral focal osteoporosis.

Disseminating Hand Surgery Research Using Social Media: The Relationship Between Altmetrics and Citations

PURPOSE

Social media adds to the traditional methods of research dissemination. It allows researchers and publishers to immediately share content directly with interested end users on a global scale. Alternative metrics (altmetrics) are new bibliometrics that describe article-level activity on platforms such as Twitter, Wikipedia, and online news media. Altmetrics are strongly associated with citation counts in numerous medical disciplines. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship of altmetrics to citation counts in the field of hand surgery.

METHODS

Altmetric Explorer was used to extract data on altmetrics and citation rates for articles published in 2017 in 6 prominent hand surgery journals. Multivariable negative binomial regression was used to estimate the relationship between citation counts and predictors (presented as the incidence rate ratio with a 95% confidence interval [CI]).

RESULTS

Overall, 624 articles were included. Mentions on social media platforms were independently associated with more citations (adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.04 [95% CI 1.02-1.05]). The factor that most influenced the rate of citations was the journal in which the article was published; articles in the Journal of Hand Surgery had at least 1 more citation than articles published elsewhere (median difference 3 [interquartile range {IQR} 2-3]) and had a median Altmetric Attention Score which was 3 points higher (IQR 2-3) than articles published elsewhere.

CONCLUSIONS

The dissemination of hand surgery research through social media channels is associated with substantial and measurable improvements in short-term citation rates CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Social media appears to be a valuable tool for communicating important research directly to hand surgeons in a timely and succinct manner.

Social Media for the Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary community (#SoMe4HPB): connecting a specialized online group for scientific and clinical knowledge dissemination

BACKGROUND

Social media has an increasingly important role in scientific communication, clinical discussions and knowledge distribution. While several surgical disciplines have taken to internet for increased connectivity, there is currently little knowledge about the social media activity in the field of hepatopancreatobiliary surgery. We aimed to evaluate the implementation and use of a specific HPB hashtag and Twitter handle.

METHODS

The hashtag and Twitter handle (#SoMe4HPB; @hpb_so) were initiated on February 2019. We evaluated the response during the initial 15 months by applying NodeXL to trace activity.

RESULTS

The Twitter handle had 1388 followers (by May 7, 2020) and had generated 855 tweets and retweets. A total of 1120 mentions of 182 accounts were recorded in original tweets by @hpb_so. The largest global reach was recorded in December 2019 (254.000 people). Pancreatic cancer was the subject of 15% of all posts, liver malignancies of 12% of all posts and minimally invasive surgery of 8%.

CONCLUSION

The Social Media for the Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary community (#SoMe4HPB) and its associated Twitter handle @hpb_so had a well-built inception followed by a progressive development connecting individuals interested in HPB Surgery internationally. The involvement of more actors is required in order to fully attain its scientific dissemination role.

The Use of Twitter by Medical Journals: Systematic Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

Medical journals use Twitter to engage and disseminate their research articles and implement a range of strategies to maximize reach and impact.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to systematically review the literature to synthesize and describe the different Twitter strategies used by medical journals and their effectiveness on journal impact and readership metrics.

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature before February 2020 in four electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and ScienceDirect) was conducted. Articles were reviewed using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines.

RESULTS

The search identified 44 original research studies that evaluated Twitter strategies implemented by medical journals and analyzed the relationship between Twitter metrics and alternative and citation-based metrics. The key findings suggest that promoting publications on Twitter improves citation-based and alternative metrics for academic medical journals. Moreover, implementing different Twitter strategies maximizes the amount of attention that publications and journals receive. The four key Twitter strategies implemented by many medical journals are tweeting the title and link of the article, infographics, podcasts, and hosting monthly internet-based journal clubs. Each strategy was successful in promoting the publications. However, different metrics were used to measure success.

CONCLUSIONS

Four key Twitter strategies are implemented by medical journals: tweeting the title and link of the article, infographics, podcasts, and hosting monthly internet-based journal clubs. In this review, each strategy was successful in promoting publications but used different metrics to measure success. Thus, it is difficult to conclude which strategy is most effective. In addition, the four strategies have different costs and effects on dissemination and readership. We recommend that journals and researchers incorporate a combination of Twitter strategies to maximize research impact and capture audiences with a variety of learning methods.

The importance of social media to the academic surgical literature: Relationship between Twitter activity and readership metrics

BACKGROUND

Social media has an increasing role within professional surgical practice, including the publishing and engagement of academic literature. This study aims to analyze the relationship between social media use and traditional and alternative metrics among academic surgical journals.

METHOD

Journals were identified through the InCites Journal Citation Reports 2019, and their impact factor, h-index, and CiteScore were noted. Social media platforms were examined, and Twitter activity interrogated between 1 January to 31 December 2019. Healthcare Social Graph score and an aggregated Altmetric Attention Score were also calculated for each journal. Statistical analysis was carried out to look at the correlation between traditional metrics, Twitter activity, and altmetrics.

RESULTS

Journals with a higher impact factor were more likely to use a greater number of social media platforms (R² = 0.648; P < .0001). Journals with dedicated Twitter profiles had a higher impact factor than journals without (median, 2.96 vs 1.88; Mann-Whitney U = 390; P < .001); however, over a 1-year period (2018-2019) having a Twitter presence did not alter impact factor (Mann-Whitney U = 744.5; P = .885). Increased Twitter activity was positively correlated with impact factor. Longitudinal analysis over 6 years suggested cumulative tweets correlated with an increased impact factor (R² = 0.324, P = .004). Novel alternative measures including Healthcare Social Graph score (R² = 0.472, P = .005) and Altmetric Attention Score (R² = 0.779, P = .001) positively correlated with impact factor.

CONCLUSION

Higher impact factor is associated with social media presence and activity, particularly on Twitter, with long-term activity being of particular importance. Modern alternative metrics correlate with impact factor. This relationship is complex, and future studies should look to understand this further.

News and social media coverage is associated with more downloads and citations of manuscripts that focus on substance use

BACKGROUND

A variety of substance use-related topics are discussed in the public discourse; however, it is unknown how public discussion of published substance-related findings relates to manuscript downloads and citations. This manuscript examines how traditional and social media coverage of published findings about substance use affects downloads and scientific citations.

METHODS

Altmetric and bibliographic information was obtained for manuscripts published in Drug and Alcohol Dependence between 2018 and 2019 (n = 943). Associations were examined between news and social media coverage (i.e., Twitter, Facebook) in relation to number of manuscript downloads and number of citations. This was done in a bivariable manner and in a multivariable manner examining correlates of being in the top 10^th percentile of downloads and citations.

RESULTS

73.3 % of articles were shared on Twitter, 23.6 % were shared on Facebook, and 13.9 % were covered in news sources (with 4.0 % receiving major media coverage). Epidemiology papers were among the most covered in the news, and e-cigarette review papers were among the most downloaded. News and social media coverage were positively associated with number of downloads and citations in bivariable models and with achieving the top 10 % of downloads and citations in multivariable models (ps < .001). Publishing a press release was associated with higher likelihood of receiving additional news coverage (aPR = 7.85, 95 % CI: 5.15-11.97).

CONCLUSIONS

Traditional and social media coverage of manuscripts focusing on substance use are associated with more downloads and citations. Researchers should consider sharing findings not only to increase downloads and citations but also to educate the general public.

A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Views: A Triple Crossover Trial of Visual Abstracts to Examine Their Impact on Research Dissemination

BACKGROUND

A visual abstract is a graphic summary of a research article's question, methods, and major findings. Although they have a number of uses, visual abstracts are chiefly used to promote research articles on social media.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine if the use of visual abstracts increases the visibility of nephrology research shared on Twitter.

METHODS

A prospective case-control crossover study was conducted using 40 research articles published in the American Journal of Nephrology (AJN). Each article was shared by the AJN Twitter account in 3 formats: (1) the article citation, (2) the citation with a key figure from the article, and (3) the citation with a visual abstract. Tweets were spaced 2 weeks apart to allow washout of the previous tweet, and the order of the tweets was randomized. Dissemination was measured via retweets, views, number of link clicks, and Altmetric scores.

RESULTS

Tweets that contained a visual abstract had more than twice as many views as citation-only tweets (1351, SD 1053 vs 639, SD 343) and nearly twice as many views as key figure tweets (1351, SD 1053 vs 732, SD 464). Visual abstract tweets had 5 times the engagements of citation-only tweets and more than 3.5 times the engagements of key figure tweets. Visual abstract tweets were also associated with greater increases in Altmetric scores as compared to citation-only tweets (2.20 vs 1.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of visual abstracts increased visibility of research articles on Twitter, resulting in a greater number of views, engagements, and retweets. Visual abstracts were also associated with increased Altmetric scores as compared to citation-only tweets. These findings support the broader use of visual abstracts in the scientific community. Journals should consider visual abstracts as valuable tools for research dissemination.

Impact of Randomized Controlled Trials in the Social Media: Does Science Trend As Much As Everyday Events?

BACKGROUND

The approach to the scientific literature is evolving. Currently, dissemination of articles happens in real time through social media (SoMe) channels, and little is known about its impact in medicine. The aim of this study was to investigate if SoMe dissemination followed trends independent from articles type and content.

METHODS

First, the SoMe engagement of a popular theme (#BlackFriday) and a relevant theme (#ClimateChange) was compared using a SoMe analytic tool to test if the popular theme would reach more engagement. In a second analysis, themes in colorectal surgery in the SoMe community were explored. Altmetric Explorer was searched for the term "colorectal surgery" and the outputs were categorized into 'randomized controlled trials' (RCTs) and 'other studies'. Subgroups were compared for the Altmetric scores using statistical analyses.

RESULTS

The analytic tool documented that #BlackFriday outnumbered #ClimateChange in mentions and engagement (1.6 million vs 127.000 mentions). Following, Altmetric Explorer identified 1381 articles, including 92 RCTs (7.1%). Overall, 25,554 mentions were documented from 1205 outputs (97.0% by Twitter). A greater percentage of "other studies" ranked in the lower Altmetric score categories (p = 0.0007). Similarly, the median Altmetric score was higher in the RCT subgroup comparing with "other studies" (6.5 vs. 2.0, Mann-Whitney p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, RCTs represented just the 7.1% of the studies and produced 11% of Twitter outputs. The median Altmetric scores obtained by RCTs were higher than those of other studies.

How do urogynecology and pelvic floor dysfunction terms used in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery research relate to social media indicators?

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The association between social media (SoMe) indicators and citation metrics is still controversial. we aimed to evaluate the frequency of urogynecology-related terms ("urogynecology" [UG] and "pelvic floor/dysfunction" [PF/PFD]) mentioned by traditional databases (Web of Science [WOS]) and journal ranking indicators (SCImago), as well as their association with SoMe (Altmetric database).

METHODS

In April 2019, two authors performed a search that was divided into three steps. The first one was to assess journals within the WOS Obstetrics/Gynecology and Urology categories updated to 2017 using UG and PF/PFD. The second step was to rank these studies in SCImago by the highest numbers of WOS and to correlate with journal h-index and SJR. The third step was to analyze SoMe indicators such as the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) for each study and journal retrieved.

RESULTS

The International Urogynecology Journal (IUJ) and Neurourology and Urodynamics (NAU) were the first (n = 1,394) and second (n = 974) most highly cited journals when using UG and PFD. IUJ also presented manuscripts with the highest AAS for UG and PF/PFD. Social media represented 74-93% of AAS calculated among the 20 top cited studies. For UG, SoMe presented 8,050 mentions, led by Twitter (n = 7,326). The same distribution was seen for PFD (8,493 mentions for SoMe, Twitter with 7,653). The higher the WOS citation, the higher the AAS (r = 0.483; p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

UG and PF/PFD terms are highly cited in databases and IUJ was the journal most frequently connected with them. Among SoMe tools, Twitter was the most frequently cited. WOS citations correlated with AAS.

The Use of Social Media to Increase the Impact of Health Research: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Academics in all disciplines increasingly use social media to share their publications on the internet, reaching out to different audiences. In the last few years, specific indicators of social media impact have been developed (eg, Altmetrics), to complement traditional bibliometric indicators (eg, citation count and h-index). In health research, it is unclear whether social media impact also translates into research impact.

OBJECTIVE

The primary aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the impact of using social media on the dissemination of health research. The secondary aim was to assess the correlation between Altmetrics and traditional citation-based metrics.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review to identify studies that evaluated the use of social media to disseminate research published in health-related journals. We specifically looked at studies that described experimental or correlational studies linking the use of social media with outcomes related to bibliometrics. We searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases using a predefined search strategy (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: CRD42017057709). We conducted independent and duplicate study selection and data extraction. Given the heterogeneity of the included studies, we summarized the findings through a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

Of a total of 18,624 retrieved citations, we included 51 studies: 7 (14%) impact studies (answering the primary aim) and 44 (86%) correlational studies (answering the secondary aim). Impact studies reported mixed results with several limitations, including the use of interventions of inappropriately low intensity and short duration. The majority of correlational studies suggested a positive association between traditional bibliometrics and social media metrics (eg, number of mentions) in health research.

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified suggestive yet inconclusive evidence on the impact of using social media to increase the number of citations in health research. Further studies with better design are needed to assess the causal link between social media impact and bibliometrics.