How Twitter Is Studied in the Medical Professions: A Classification of Twitter Papers Indexed in PubMed.

Medicine 2.0 Pub Date : 2013-07-18 eCollection Date: 2013-07-01 DOI:10.2196/med20.2269
Shirley Ann Williams, Melissa Terras, Claire Warwick
{"title":"How Twitter Is Studied in the Medical Professions: A Classification of Twitter Papers Indexed in PubMed.","authors":"Shirley Ann Williams,&nbsp;Melissa Terras,&nbsp;Claire Warwick","doi":"10.2196/med20.2269","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Since their inception, Twitter and related microblogging systems have provided a rich source of information for researchers and have attracted interest in their affordances and use. Since 2009 PubMed has included 123 journal articles on medicine and Twitter, but no overview exists as to how the field uses Twitter in research.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This paper aims to identify published work relating to Twitter within the fields indexed by PubMed, and then to classify it. This classification will provide a framework in which future researchers will be able to position their work, and to provide an understanding of the current reach of research using Twitter in medical disciplines.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Papers on Twitter and related topics were identified and reviewed. The papers were then qualitatively classified based on the paper's title and abstract to determine their focus. The work that was Twitter focused was studied in detail to determine what data, if any, it was based on, and from this a categorization of the data set size used in the studies was developed. Using open coded content analysis additional important categories were also identified, relating to the primary methodology, domain, and aspect.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>As of 2012, PubMed comprises more than 21 million citations from biomedical literature, and from these a corpus of 134 potentially Twitter related papers were identified, eleven of which were subsequently found not to be relevant. There were no papers prior to 2009 relating to microblogging, a term first used in 2006. Of the remaining 123 papers which mentioned Twitter, thirty were focused on Twitter (the others referring to it tangentially). The early Twitter focused papers introduced the topic and highlighted the potential, not carrying out any form of data analysis. The majority of published papers used analytic techniques to sort through thousands, if not millions, of individual tweets, often depending on automated tools to do so. Our analysis demonstrates that researchers are starting to use knowledge discovery methods and data mining techniques to understand vast quantities of tweets: the study of Twitter is becoming quantitative research.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This work is to the best of our knowledge the first overview study of medical related research based on Twitter and related microblogging. We have used 5 dimensions to categorize published medical related research on Twitter. This classification provides a framework within which researchers studying development and use of Twitter within medical related research, and those undertaking comparative studies of research, relating to Twitter in the area of medicine and beyond, can position and ground their work.</p>","PeriodicalId":90648,"journal":{"name":"Medicine 2.0","volume":"2 2","pages":"e2"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4084770/pdf/","citationCount":"20","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine 2.0","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/med20.2269","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2013/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

Abstract

Background: Since their inception, Twitter and related microblogging systems have provided a rich source of information for researchers and have attracted interest in their affordances and use. Since 2009 PubMed has included 123 journal articles on medicine and Twitter, but no overview exists as to how the field uses Twitter in research.

Objective: This paper aims to identify published work relating to Twitter within the fields indexed by PubMed, and then to classify it. This classification will provide a framework in which future researchers will be able to position their work, and to provide an understanding of the current reach of research using Twitter in medical disciplines.

Methods: Papers on Twitter and related topics were identified and reviewed. The papers were then qualitatively classified based on the paper's title and abstract to determine their focus. The work that was Twitter focused was studied in detail to determine what data, if any, it was based on, and from this a categorization of the data set size used in the studies was developed. Using open coded content analysis additional important categories were also identified, relating to the primary methodology, domain, and aspect.

Results: As of 2012, PubMed comprises more than 21 million citations from biomedical literature, and from these a corpus of 134 potentially Twitter related papers were identified, eleven of which were subsequently found not to be relevant. There were no papers prior to 2009 relating to microblogging, a term first used in 2006. Of the remaining 123 papers which mentioned Twitter, thirty were focused on Twitter (the others referring to it tangentially). The early Twitter focused papers introduced the topic and highlighted the potential, not carrying out any form of data analysis. The majority of published papers used analytic techniques to sort through thousands, if not millions, of individual tweets, often depending on automated tools to do so. Our analysis demonstrates that researchers are starting to use knowledge discovery methods and data mining techniques to understand vast quantities of tweets: the study of Twitter is becoming quantitative research.

Conclusions: This work is to the best of our knowledge the first overview study of medical related research based on Twitter and related microblogging. We have used 5 dimensions to categorize published medical related research on Twitter. This classification provides a framework within which researchers studying development and use of Twitter within medical related research, and those undertaking comparative studies of research, relating to Twitter in the area of medicine and beyond, can position and ground their work.

如何在医疗行业研究Twitter:在PubMed索引的Twitter论文分类。
背景:Twitter和相关的微博系统自成立以来为研究人员提供了丰富的信息来源,并吸引了人们对其功能和使用的兴趣。自2009年以来,PubMed已经收录了123篇关于医学和Twitter的期刊文章,但没有关于该领域如何在研究中使用Twitter的概述。目的:本文旨在识别PubMed索引领域中与Twitter相关的已发表作品,并对其进行分类。这种分类将提供一个框架,未来的研究人员将能够在其中定位他们的工作,并提供对使用Twitter在医学学科中研究的当前范围的理解。方法:对Twitter及相关主题的论文进行识别和综述。然后根据论文的标题和摘要对论文进行定性分类,以确定其重点。对Twitter关注的工作进行了详细研究,以确定它基于哪些数据(如果有的话),并由此开发了研究中使用的数据集大小的分类。使用开放编码内容分析,还确定了与主要方法、领域和方面相关的其他重要类别。结果:截至2012年,PubMed收录了超过2100万次生物医学文献引用,从这些文献中发现了134篇可能与Twitter相关的论文,其中11篇随后被发现不相关。微博这个词最早出现在2006年,但在2009年之前没有相关的论文。在剩下的123篇提到Twitter的论文中,有30篇是关于Twitter的(其他的只是间接提到)。早期以Twitter为重点的论文介绍了这个话题,强调了它的潜力,但没有进行任何形式的数据分析。大多数发表的论文使用分析技术对数千条(如果不是数百万条的话)单独的推文进行分类,通常依赖于自动化工具。我们的分析表明,研究人员开始使用知识发现方法和数据挖掘技术来理解大量的推文:对推特的研究正在成为定量研究。结论:本研究是我们所知的第一个基于Twitter和相关微博的医学相关研究综述。我们使用5个维度对Twitter上发表的医学相关研究进行分类。这种分类提供了一个框架,在这个框架内,研究Twitter在医学相关研究中的发展和使用的研究人员,以及从事与医学领域和其他领域的Twitter相关研究的比较研究的研究人员,可以定位和基础他们的工作。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信