Skip to main content
Log in

Using Social Media at National Meetings in Hematology—Optimal Use, Tips, Strategies, and Limitations

  • Social Media Impact of Hematologic Malignancies (N Pemmaraju, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Hematologic Malignancy Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript


Social media has become an important tool for physicians and scientists to rapidly share information with colleagues around the world. Use of social media outlets—in particular, Twitter—has risen rapidly in recent years, and it is now customary for national hematology meetings to have thousands of participants who share photographs and textual summaries of data presentations, as well as personal insights and commentary, with virtual audiences. These messages, or “tweets,” can be specifically followed using a hashtag ontology which arose organically over the past several years in the context of medical meetings. This system facilitates communication between meeting attendees and those colleagues near and far with similar interests, thus globalizing the conversation between hematology providers, investigators, patient advocates, professional organizations, regulatory agencies, testing companies, and the pharmaceutical industry about cutting-edge developments in the field.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others


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

  1. Ekins S, Perlstein EO. Ten simple rules of live tweeting at scientific conferences. PLoS Comput Biol. 2014;10:e1003789.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. •• Katz MS, Utengen A, Anderson PF, Thompson MA, Attai DJ, Johnston C, et al. Disease-specific hashtags for online communication about cancer care. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2:392–4. Concise description of the origin of disease-specific hashtags and a study describing their initial usage patterns by patients, caregivers/advocates, physicians, non-physician healthcare providers, other individuals, hospitals, other organizations, and spam generators

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Thompson MA, Majhail NS, Wood WA, Perales M, Chaboissier M. Social media and the practicing hematologist: Twitter 101 for the busy healthcare provider. Curr Hematol Malig Rep. 2016;10:405–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Oremus W. Twitter’s new order: inside the changes that could save its business and reshape civil discourse. Slate. 2017. Available at: Accessed 5 Oct 2017.

  5. Dahiya S, Kansagara AJ, Ali SS. Increasing use of social media at annual ASH meetings. Blood. 2015;126:4469.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Pemmaraju N, Thompson MA, Mesa RA, Desai T. Analysis of the use and impact of twitter during American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meetings from 2011 to 2016: focus on advanced metrics and user trends. J Oncol Pract. 2017(13):e623–31.

  7. • Pemmaraju N, Mesa RA, Majhail NS, Thompson MA. The use and impact of Twitter at medical conferences: best practice and Twitter etiquette. Semin Hematol. 2017. Available at: Accessed 5 Oct 2017. Useful discussion regarding Twitter etiquette related to live-tweeting conference presentations.

  8. Majhail N. @BldCancerDoc, or how I learned to stop worrying and love Twitter. ASH Clinical News. Available at: Accessed 18 Sept 2017.

  9. Decamp M. Physicians, social media, and conflict of interest. J Gen Intern Med. 2013;28:299–303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Shore R, Halsey J, Shah K, Crigger BJ, Douglas SP. AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA) report of the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs: professionalism in the use of social media. J Clin Ethics. 2011;22:165–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. •• Farnan JM, Snyder Sulmasy L, Worster BK, Chaudry HJ, Rhyne JA, Arora VM, et al. Online medical professionalism: patient and public relationships: policy statement from the American College of Physicians and the Federation of State Medical Boards. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:620–7. Important professional guidelines for physicians regarding use of online media.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lewis MA, Dicker AP. Social media and oncology: the past, present, and future of electronic communication between physician and patient. Semin Oncol. 2015;42:764–71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Dizon DS, Graham D, Thompson MA, Johnson LJ, Johnston C, Fisch MJ, et al. Practical guidance: the use of social media in oncology. J Oncol Pract. 2012;8:e114–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Isaac M. Twitter to test doubling tweet length to 280 characters. New York Times 2017. Available at: Accessed: 5 Oct 2017.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aaron C. Logan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

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

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Social Media Impact of Hematologic Malignancies

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Logan, A.C. Using Social Media at National Meetings in Hematology—Optimal Use, Tips, Strategies, and Limitations. Curr Hematol Malig Rep 12, 605–610 (2017).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: