[Social media in anesthesiology: a systematic review on typology as well as opportunities and risks].

IF 1
Die Anaesthesiologie Pub Date : 2026-05-01 Epub Date: 2026-03-06 DOI:10.1007/s00101-026-01660-8
Tobias Weigl, Mark Coburn
{"title":"[Social media in anesthesiology: a systematic review on typology as well as opportunities and risks].","authors":"Tobias Weigl, Mark Coburn","doi":"10.1007/s00101-026-01660-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Social media have proliferated globally, with an estimated 5.1-5.5 billion active users and are gaining increasing relevance in anesthesiology. Social media are now firmly established as a medium for knowledge acquisition and information retrieval. In this context, \"medfluencers\" (individuals and institutions) play a growing role in disseminating health-related and discipline-specific information.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this article is firstly, to develop a clearer understanding of \"medfluencers\" in anesthesiology and secondly, to synthesize the opportunities and risks of social media for anesthesiology through a structured literature analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following specification of the two core research questions, a systematic literature search was conducted using predefined search strings in PubMed. Relevant contents from identified publications were synthesized into a typology of \"medfluencers\" and/or opportunities and risks of social media in anesthesiology. The literature search was performed in a systematic PRISMA-oriented manner and due to the heterogeneity of study designs and outcomes a narrative synthesis of the evidence was carried out.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1727 possible publications were identified and after the screening process 49 articles (original studies and reviews) were included. From the results five types of \"medfluencers\" in anesthesiology with distinct competencies, resources and aims were delineated. Social media activities in anesthesiology were synthesized into six opportunities and six risks for the respective \"medfluencer\" groups.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Virality is not a proxy for quality. Simultaneously, social media create a broad coverage and therefore entail content, ethical and legal responsibility. The use of social media offers novel possibilities for anesthesiology but requires a critical, evidence-based and legally compliant utilization. Concrete mitigation strategies to minimize risks are discussed, from which practical dos and don'ts for \"medfluencers\" are derived. Further studies are needed to be able to assess the effects on specific anesthesiological practices and the impacts on patient outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":72805,"journal":{"name":"Die Anaesthesiologie","volume":" ","pages":"319-332"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13128759/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Die Anaesthesiologie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00101-026-01660-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/3/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Social media have proliferated globally, with an estimated 5.1-5.5 billion active users and are gaining increasing relevance in anesthesiology. Social media are now firmly established as a medium for knowledge acquisition and information retrieval. In this context, "medfluencers" (individuals and institutions) play a growing role in disseminating health-related and discipline-specific information.

Objective: The aim of this article is firstly, to develop a clearer understanding of "medfluencers" in anesthesiology and secondly, to synthesize the opportunities and risks of social media for anesthesiology through a structured literature analysis.

Methods: Following specification of the two core research questions, a systematic literature search was conducted using predefined search strings in PubMed. Relevant contents from identified publications were synthesized into a typology of "medfluencers" and/or opportunities and risks of social media in anesthesiology. The literature search was performed in a systematic PRISMA-oriented manner and due to the heterogeneity of study designs and outcomes a narrative synthesis of the evidence was carried out.

Results: A total of 1727 possible publications were identified and after the screening process 49 articles (original studies and reviews) were included. From the results five types of "medfluencers" in anesthesiology with distinct competencies, resources and aims were delineated. Social media activities in anesthesiology were synthesized into six opportunities and six risks for the respective "medfluencer" groups.

Discussion: Virality is not a proxy for quality. Simultaneously, social media create a broad coverage and therefore entail content, ethical and legal responsibility. The use of social media offers novel possibilities for anesthesiology but requires a critical, evidence-based and legally compliant utilization. Concrete mitigation strategies to minimize risks are discussed, from which practical dos and don'ts for "medfluencers" are derived. Further studies are needed to be able to assess the effects on specific anesthesiological practices and the impacts on patient outcomes.

[麻醉学中的社交媒体:对类型学以及机会和风险的系统回顾]。
背景:社交媒体在全球范围内激增,估计有51 - 55亿活跃用户,并且与麻醉学的相关性越来越大。社交媒体已经成为知识获取和信息检索的重要媒介。在这方面,“医疗影响者”(个人和机构)在传播与健康有关和特定学科的信息方面发挥着越来越大的作用。目的:本文的目的首先是为了更清晰地了解麻醉学中的“medfluencers”,其次,通过结构化的文献分析,综合社交媒体对麻醉学的机会和风险。方法:明确两个核心研究问题后,在PubMed中使用预定义的搜索字符串进行系统的文献检索。已确定出版物的相关内容被合成为麻醉学中“medinfluencers”和/或社交媒体的机会和风险的类型学。文献检索是以系统的prisma为导向的方式进行的,由于研究设计和结果的异质性,对证据进行了叙述性综合。结果:共发现了1727篇可能的出版物,筛选过程后纳入了49篇文章(原始研究和综述)。根据研究结果,划分了麻醉学中具有不同能力、资源和目标的五类“medinfluencers”。麻醉学领域的社交媒体活动被综合为各自“ medinfluencer ”群体的六种机会和六种风险。讨论:病毒式传播并不代表质量。同时,社交媒体创造了广泛的覆盖范围,因此需要承担内容、道德和法律责任。社交媒体的使用为麻醉学提供了新的可能性,但需要关键的、循证的和合法的使用。讨论了将风险降至最低的具体缓解战略,并从中得出了对“干预影响者”应做和不应做的实际做法。需要进一步的研究来评估对特定麻醉实践的影响以及对患者预后的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书