Abstract
We proposed following influencers in obstetrics and gynecology on Twitter. We believe that the use of Twitter may help obstetrics and gynecology doctors in low-income countries as well as stimulate fellows and residents by following actual discussions at international conferences.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Ostler D, Steger J, Bernhard L, Yu K, Hartwig R, Feussner H, Wilhelm D (2021) “Hybrid” scientific conference: lessons learned from the digital annual meeting of the CARS international conference during the Covid-19 pandemic. Innov Surg Sci 6:115–123. https://doi.org/10.1515/iss-2021-0012
Ghaith S, Dyre LJ, Vasilev DV, Wasson MN (2023) The top social media influencers in obstetrics and gynecology on twitter. Arch Gynecol Obstet. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-023-07079-5
Plante M, Kwon JS, Ferguson S, Samouëlian V, Ferron G, Maulard A, de Kroon C, Van Driel W, Tidy J, Marth C, Tamussino K, Kommoss S, Goffin F, Eyjólfsdóttir B, Kim JW, Gleeson N, Ubi JM, Brotto L, Tu D, Shepherd LE (2023) An international randomized phase III trial comparing radical hysterectomy and pelvic node dissection (RH) vs simple hysterectomy and pelvic node dissection (SH) in patients with low-risk early-stage cervical cancer (LRESCC): a gynecologic cancer intergroup study led by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG CX.5-SHAPE). J Clin Oncol 41:LBA5511. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2023.41.17_suppl.LBA5511
Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R, Lopez A, Vieira M, Ribeiro R, Buda A, Yan X, Shuzhong Y, Chetty N, Isla D, Tamura M, Zhu T, Robledo KP, Gebski V, Asher R, Behan V, Nicklin JL, Coleman RL, Obermair A (2018) Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 379:1895–1904. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1806395
GOG Foundation (2021) A trial of robotic versus open hysterectomy surgery in cervix cancer (ROCC) https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04831580. Accessed 19 June 2023
Chikazawa K, Tomoyuki K (2020) Why not use “Twitter” of core clinical journals for rapid dissemination of medical information during the COVID-19 pandemic? Arch Gynecol Obstet 302:1047–1048. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05715-y
Funding
No funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
KC and KI contributed to project development and manuscript writing. TK reviewed the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article. All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript. The authors have no financial or proprietary interests in any material discussed in this article.
Ethical approval
Not applicable.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publishing
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chikazawa, K., Imai, K. & Kuwata, T. Why don’t we follow influencers in obstetrics and gynaecology on Twitter to obtain information on the most recent international congresses?. Arch Gynecol Obstet 309, 319–320 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-023-07134-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-023-07134-1