Current Hematologic Malignancy Reports

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 53–58 | Cite as

Twitter Use in the Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Community

  • Sagar S. Patel
  • Navneet S. MajhailEmail author
Stem Cell Transplantation (R Maziarz, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Stem Cell Transplantation


Purpose of Review

Social media has revolutionized the access and exchange of information in healthcare. The microblogging platform Twitter has been used by blood and marrow transplant physicians over the last several years with increasing enthusiasm. We review the adoption of Twitter in the transplant community and its implications on clinical care, education, and research.

Recent Findings

Twitter allows instantaneous access to the latest research publications, developments at national and international meetings, networking with colleagues, participation in advocacy, and promoting available clinical trials. Additionally, Twitter serves as a gateway for resources dedicated to education and support for patients undergoing transplantation.


We demonstrate the utilization and various applications in using Twitter among hematopoietic cell transplant healthcare professionals, patients, and other affiliated stakeholders. Professionalism concerns with clinician use of such social media platforms, however, also exist. Overall, Twitter has enhanced and increased the opportunities for engagement in the transplant community.


Social media Twitter Hematopoietic cell transplantation 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Grajales FJ 3rd, Sheps S, Ho K, et al. Social media: a review and tutorial of applications in medicine and health care. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(2):e13. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abuhadra N, Majhail NS, Nazha A. Impact of social media for the hematologist/oncologist. Semin Hematol 2017; 54: 193–197.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    •• Thompson MA, Majhail NS, Wood WA, Perales MA, Chaboissier M. Social media and the practicing hematologist: twitter 101 for the busy healthcare provider. Curr Hematol Malig Rep. 2015;10(4):405–12. Great primer on using Twitter for the hematologist. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Katz MS, Utengen A, Anderson PF, et al. Disease-specific hashtags for online communication about cancer care. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2:392–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    •• Pemmaraju N, Thompson MA, Qazilbash M. Disease-specific hashtags and the creation of Twitter medical communities in hematology and oncology. Semin Hematol. 2017;54:189–92. Provides a framework for disease-specific hashtags in hematology and oncology. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haustein S, Costas R, Lariviere V. Characterizing social media metrics of scholarly papers: the effect of document properties and collaboration patterns. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0120495. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thelwall M, Haustein S, Lariviere V, Sugimoto CR. Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PLoS One. 2013;8(5):e64841. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eysenbach G. Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(4):e123. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ciprut S, Curnyn C, Davuluri M, et al. Twitter activity associated with U.S. news and world report reputation scores for urology departments. Urology. 2017;108:11–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    •• Pemmaraju N, Mesa RA, Majhail NS, Thompson MA. The use and impact of Twitter at medical conferences: best practices and Twitter etiquette. Semin Hematol. 2017;54:184–8. Discusses the how significantly Twitter has changed medical conference participation. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    West HJ. Practicing in partnership with Dr. Google: the growing effect of social media in oncology practice and research. Oncologist. 2013;18(7):780–2. Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sedrak MS, Cohen RB, Merchant RM, Schapira MM. Cancer communication in the social media age. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(6):822–3. Scholar
  13. 13.
    • Thompson MA, Younes A, Miller RS. Using social media in oncology for education and patient engagement. Oncology (Williston Park). 2012;26:782. 784–785, 791. This paper discusses social media use in oncology for the purposes of education and patient engagement. Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shay DF. Physician use of social media: navigating the risks. Establish social media guidelines to protect health information, and reputation of practice and physicians. Med Econ. 2014;91:44–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dizon DS, Graham D, Thompson MA, et al. Practical guidance: the use of social media in oncology practice. J Oncol Pract. 2012;8:e114–24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lewis MA, Dicker AP. Social media and oncology: the past, present, and future of electronic communication between physician and patient. Semin Oncol. 2015;42(5):764–71. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Blood & Marrow Transplant Program, Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Cleveland ClinicTaussig Cancer InstituteClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations