Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 23, Issue 10, pp 3418–3422 | Cite as

Tweeting the Meeting: Twitter Use at The American Society of Breast Surgeons Annual Meeting 2013–2016

  • Deanna J. AttaiEmail author
  • Diane M. Radford
  • Michael S. Cowher
Breast Oncology



Twitter social media is being used to disseminate medical meeting information. Meeting attendees and other interested parties have the ability to follow and participate in conversations related to meeting content. We analyzed Twitter activity generated from the 2013–2016 American Society of Breast Surgeons Annual Meetings.


The Symplur Signals database was used to determine number of tweets, tweets per user, and impressions for each meeting. The number of unique physicians, patients/caregivers/advocates, and industry participants was determined. Physician tweeters were cross-referenced with membership and attendance rosters. Tweet transcripts were analyzed for content and tweets were categorized as either scientific, social, administrative, industry promotion, or irrelevant.


From 2013 to 2016, the number of tweets increased by 600 %, the number of Twitter users increased by 450 %, and the number of physician tweeters increased by 457 %. The number of impressions (tweets × followers) increased from more than 3.5 million to almost 20.5 million, an increase of 469 %. The majority of tweets were informative (70–80 %); social tweets ranged from 13 to 23 %. A small percentage (3–6 %) of tweets were related to administrative matters. There were very few industry or irrelevant tweets.


Twitter social media use at the American Society of Breast Surgeons annual meeting showed a substantial increase during the time period evaluated. The use of Twitter during professional meetings is a tremendous opportunity to share information. The authors feel that medical conference organizers should encourage Twitter participation and should be educating attendees on the proper use of Twitter.


Social Medium Twitter User Breast Surgeon Professional Meeting General Session 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors thank ASBrS staff members Sharon Grutman, Christina Lucara, Marti Boyer, and Mara Lang for their assistance with compiling the ASBrS Twitter experience history, as well as membership and attendance records. The authors would like to acknowledge Audun Utengen for his assistance with the Symplur Signals database.


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Chaudhry A, Glodé M, Gillman M, Miller RS. Trends in Twitter use by physicians at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting, 2010 and 2011. J Oncol Pract. 2012;8(3):173–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McKendrick DRA, Cumming GP, Lee AJ. Increased use of Twitter at a medical conference: a report and review of the educational opportunities. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(6):e176.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wilkinson SE, Basto MY, Perovic G, Lawrentschuk N, Murphy DG. The social media revolution is changing the conference experience: analytics and trends from eight international meetings. BMJ Int. 2015;115(5):839–46.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Neill A, Cronin JJ, Brannigan D, O’Sullivan R, Cadogan M. The impact of social media on a major international emergency medicine conference. Emerg Med J. 2014:31(5):401–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Canvasser NE, Ramo C, Morgan TM, Zheng K, Hollenbeck BK, Ghani KR. The use of social media in endourology: an analysis of the 2013 World Congress of Endourology Meeting. J Endourol. 2015;29(5)615–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ferguson C, Inglis SC, Newton PJ, Cripps PJS, Macdonald PS, Davidson PM. Social media: a tool to spread information: a case study analysis of Twitter conversation at the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand 61st Annual Scientific Meeting 2013. Collegian. 2014;21(2):89–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Djuricich AM, Zee-Cheng JE. Live Tweeting in medicine: “Tweeting the meeting.” Int Rev Psychiatry. 2015;27(2):133–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    Ferguson C. If It’s Posted, Is It Published? Intellectual property, conferences, and social media. Collegian. 2014;21(2):79–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13. Accessed 27 May 2016.
  14. 14.
    Cochran A, Kao LS, Gusani NJ, Suliburk JW, Nwomeh BC. Use of Twitter to document the 2013 Academic Surgical Congress. J Surg Res. 2014;190(1):36–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Katz MS, Utengen A, Anderson, PF, Thompson MA, Attai DJ, Johnston C, Dizon DS. Disease-specific hashtags for online communication about cancer care. JAMA Oncol. 2016; 2(3):392–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Attai DJ, Cowher MS, Al-Hamadani M, Schoger JM, Staley AC, Lanrcasper J. Twitter social media is an effective tool for breast cancer patient education and support: patient-reported outcomes by survey. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(7):e188.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sedrak MS, Cohen RB, Merchant RM, Schapira MM. Cancer communication in the social media age. JAMA Oncol. 2016. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.5475.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dizon DS, Graham D, Thompson MA, Johnson LJ, Johnston C, Fisch MJ, Miller R. Practical guidance: the use of social media in oncology practice. J Oncol Pract. 2012;8(5):e114–24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deanna J. Attai
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  • Diane M. Radford
    • 2
  • Michael S. Cowher
    • 3
  1. 1.David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLALos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Breast Services, DDSICleveland ClinicClevelandUSA
  3. 3.Allegheny Health NetworkPittsburghUSA
  4. 4.UCLA Health Burbank Breast CareBurbankUSA

Personalised recommendations