Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Scientific Report
  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Piwowar P, Priem J, Larivière V et al (2018) The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles. PeerJ 6:e4375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Grossman RC, Mackenzie DG, Keller DS et al (2020) #SoMe4Surgery: from inception to impact. BMJ Innovations Published Online First: 03 February 2020. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjinnov-2019-000356

  3. Søreide K, Mackenzie G, Polom K et al (2019) Tweeting the meeting: quantitative and qualitative twitter activity during the 38th ESSO conference. Eur J Surg Oncol 45:284–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Mackenzie G, Soreide K, Polom K et al (2020) Beyond the hashtag—an exploration of tweeting and replies at the European Society of Surgical Oncology 39th clinical conference (#ESSO39). Eur J Surg Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2020.02.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mayol J, Dziakova J (2017) Value of social media in advancing surgical research. Br J Surg 104:1753–1755

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Grossman RC (2019) This month on Twitter. Br J Surg 106(7):814

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Schaffner AC (1994) The future of scientific journals: lessons from the past. Inf Technol Libr 13:239(9). https://faculty.washington.edu/jwj/lis520/schaffner.html

  8. Ibrahim AM (2016) A primer on how to create a visual abstract 2016; December. www.SurgeryRedesign.com/resources

  9. Ibrahim AM, Lillemoe KD, Klingensmith ME et al (2017) Visual Abstracts to disseminate research on social media: a prospective, case-control crossover study. Ann Surg 266:e46–e48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chapman SJ, Grossman RC, FitzPatrick MEB et al (2019) Randomized controlled trial of plain English and visual abstracts for disseminating surgical research via social media. Br J Surg 1611–1616

  11. Hall N (2014) The Kardashian index: a measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists. Genome Biol 15:424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. McDonald JJ, Bisset C, Coleman MG et al (2015) Contemporary use of social media by consultant colorectal surgeons. Colorectal Dis 17:165–171

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Brady RRW, Chapman SJ, Atallah S et al (2017) #colorectalsurgery. Br J Surg 104:1470–1476

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Banerjee S, Garrison LP, Danel A et al (2017) Effects of arginine-based immunonutrition on inpatient total costs and hospitalization outcomes for patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Nutrition 42:106–113

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Huijts DD, van Groningen JT, Guicherit OR et al (2018) Weekend effect in emergency colon and rectal cancer surgery: a prospective study using data from the Dutch ColoRectal Audit. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 16:735–741

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Papaconstantinou HT, Ricciardi R, Margolin DA et al (2018) A novel wound retractor combining continuous irrigation and barrier protection reduces incisional contamination in colorectal surgery. World J Surg 42:3000–3007. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-018-4568-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hasler-Gehrer S, Linecker M, Keerl A et al (2019) Does coffee intake reduce postoperative ileus after laparoscopic elective colorectal surgery? A prospective, randomized controlled study: the Coffee Study. Dis Colon Rectum 62:997–1004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Vallance AE, Fearnhead NS, Kuryba A et al (2018) Effect of public reporting of surgeons’ outcomes on patient selection, “gaming,” and mortality in colorectal cancer surgery in England: population based cohort study. BMJ 361:k1581

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Torgeson M, Kileny J, Pfeifer C et al (2018) Conventional epidural versus transversus abdominis plane block with liposomal bupivacaine: a randomized trial in colorectal surgery. J Am Coll Surg 227:78–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hanna MH, Jafari MD, Jafari F et al (2017) Randomized clinical trial of epidural compared with conventional analgesia after minimally invasive colorectal surgery. J Am Coll Surg 225:622–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Armstrong G, Croft J, Corrigan N et al (2018) IntAct: intra-operative fluorescence angiography to prevent anastomotic leak in rectal cancer surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Colorectal Dis 20:O226–O234

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Gillis C, Fenton TR, Sajobi TT et al (2019) Trimodal prehabilitation for colorectal surgery attenuates post-surgical losses in lean body mass: a pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Nutr 38:1053–1060

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Arjona-Sánchez A, Barrios P, Boldo-Roda E et al (2018) HIPECT4: multicentre, randomized clinical trial to evaluate safety and efficacy of Hyperthermic intra-peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) with Mitomycin C used during surgery for treatment of locally advanced colorectal carcinoma. BMC Cancer 18:183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Terzi C, Bingul M, Arslan NC et al (2018) Randomized controlled trial of 8 weeks’ versus 12 weeks’ interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 22:279–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ris F, Liot E, Buchs NC et al (2018) Multicentre phase II trial of near-infrared imaging in elective colorectal surgery. Br J Surg 105:1359–1367

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Keeler BD, Dickson EA, Simpson JA et al (2019) The impact of pre-operative intravenous iron on quality of life after colorectal cancer surgery: outcomes from the intravenous iron in colorectal cancer-associated anaemia (IVICA) trial. Anaesthesia 74:714–725

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Fretland ÅA, Dagenborg VJ, Bjørnelv GMW et al (2018) Laparoscopic versus open resection for colorectal liver metastases: the OSLO-COMET randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 267:199–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Collaborative EuroSurg (2018) Body mass index and complications following major gastrointestinal surgery: a prospective, international cohort study and meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis 20:O215–O225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ripollés-Melchor J, Ramírez-Rodríguez JM, Casans-Francés R et al (2019) Association between use of enhanced recovery after surgery protocol and postoperative complications in colorectal surgery: the postoperative outcomes within enhanced recovery after surgery protocol (POWER) study. JAMA Surg 154:725–736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Koskenvuo L, Malila N, Pitkäniemi J et al (2019) Sex differences in faecal occult blood test screening for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 106:436–447

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Brown SR, Fearnhead NS, Faiz OD et al (2018) The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland consensus guidelines in surgery for inflammatory bowel disease. Colorectal Dis 20(Suppl 8):3–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Wexner SD, Petrucci AM, Brady RR et al (2017) Social media in colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis 19:105–114

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Dueland S, Syversveen T, Solheim JM et al (2020) Survival following liver transplantation for patients with nonresectable liver-only colorectal metastases. Ann Surg 271:212–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Varghese TK Jr (2017) How does information spread on social media lead to effective change? Clin Colon Rectal Surg 30:240–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Søreide K (2019) Numbers needed to tweet: social media and impact on surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol 45:292–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Jeong JW, Kim MJ, Oh HK et al (2019) The impact of social media on citation rates in coloproctology. Colorectal Dis 21:1175–1182

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Smith ZL, Chiang AL, Bowman D et al (2019) Longitudinal relationship between social media activity and article citations in the journal Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 90:77–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Khan MS, Shahadat A, Khan SU et al (2020) The Kardashian Index of cardiologists: celebrities or experts? JACC Case Rep 2:330–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair JC et al (1995) Users’ guides to the medical literature. IX. A method for grading health care recommendations. Evidence-based medicine working group. JAMA 274:1800–1804

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Ortega JL (2018) Reliability and accuracy of altmetric providers: a comparison among Altmetric.com, PlumX and Crossref Event Data. Scientometrics 116:2123–2138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Ruan QZ, Chen AD, Cohen JB et al (2018) Alternative metrics of scholarly output: the relationship among altmetric score, Mendeley reader score, citations, and downloads in plastic and reconstructive surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 141:801–809

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. General Surgery Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, Catholic University, Largo Francesco Vito 1, 00168, Rome, Italy

    Laura Lorenzon

  2. Department of General Surgery, Wexham Park Hospital, Frimley Health NHS Trust, Slough, UK

    Rebecca C. Grossman

  3. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway

    Kjetil Soreide

  4. Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

    Kjetil Soreide

Authors
  1. Laura Lorenzon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rebecca C. Grossman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kjetil Soreide
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Lorenzon.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None of the authors has any potential financial conflict of interest related to this manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 21 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lorenzon, L., Grossman, R.C. & Soreide, K. Impact of Randomized Controlled Trials in the Social Media: Does Science Trend As Much As Everyday Events?. World J Surg 45, 88–96 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-020-05769-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-020-05769-8

Search

Navigation