{"title":"使用Twitter作为肿瘤学技术平台与其用户的科学影响之间的联系。","authors":"W. Cheung, E. Lim, S. Kong","doi":"10.1200/jgo.2019.5.suppl.16","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"16 Background: Social media channels, such as Twitter, represent relatively new technology platforms for scientific users to disseminate research findings and communicate their views and interpretations to colleagues and followers. To date, the associations between the use of Twitter and the scientific impact of its users are unclear. Methods: All Canadian oncologists who are full members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology were identified from the online membership directory. Users of Twitter were defined as those with an active Twitter account, as of June 2019, and posted at least one tweet within the past year. Data regarding the number of tweets, likes, and followers were collected by an online search of Twitter. Scientific impact of each individual was assessed based on a user’s h-index and number of citations from Google Scholar as well as score from Research Gate. Associations were examined with summary statistics and correlation coefficients. Results: We identified 676 eligible oncologists of whom 80 (12%) and 596 (88%) currently use and do not use Twitter. Among the users, the median number (IQR) of tweets, likes, and followers were 196 (45-865), 325 (86-1,246), and 198 (89-449), respectively. The scientific impact of Twitter users versus non-users was statistically similar (see Table). Likewise, within the group of users, there was no correlation between the number of tweets, likes, and followers and the scientific impact of individuals (correlation coefficients 0.38, 0.34, and 0.41, respectively, all p > 0.05). Conclusions: Only 1 in 10 oncologists use Twitter, but those who use Twitter leveraged this technology platform frequently. There was no association between the use of Twitter and the scientific impact of its users. Views from a minority of oncologists are represented on Twitter. Such bias underscores the need to exercise caution when using social media for scientific knowledge exchange. Regular evaluations of new technologies are warranted to ensure the quality and rigor of their scientific content. [Table: see text]","PeriodicalId":15862,"journal":{"name":"Journal of global oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Associations between the use of Twitter as a technology platform in oncology and the scientific impact of its users.\",\"authors\":\"W. Cheung, E. Lim, S. Kong\",\"doi\":\"10.1200/jgo.2019.5.suppl.16\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"16 Background: Social media channels, such as Twitter, represent relatively new technology platforms for scientific users to disseminate research findings and communicate their views and interpretations to colleagues and followers. To date, the associations between the use of Twitter and the scientific impact of its users are unclear. Methods: All Canadian oncologists who are full members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology were identified from the online membership directory. Users of Twitter were defined as those with an active Twitter account, as of June 2019, and posted at least one tweet within the past year. Data regarding the number of tweets, likes, and followers were collected by an online search of Twitter. Scientific impact of each individual was assessed based on a user’s h-index and number of citations from Google Scholar as well as score from Research Gate. Associations were examined with summary statistics and correlation coefficients. Results: We identified 676 eligible oncologists of whom 80 (12%) and 596 (88%) currently use and do not use Twitter. Among the users, the median number (IQR) of tweets, likes, and followers were 196 (45-865), 325 (86-1,246), and 198 (89-449), respectively. The scientific impact of Twitter users versus non-users was statistically similar (see Table). Likewise, within the group of users, there was no correlation between the number of tweets, likes, and followers and the scientific impact of individuals (correlation coefficients 0.38, 0.34, and 0.41, respectively, all p > 0.05). Conclusions: Only 1 in 10 oncologists use Twitter, but those who use Twitter leveraged this technology platform frequently. There was no association between the use of Twitter and the scientific impact of its users. Views from a minority of oncologists are represented on Twitter. Such bias underscores the need to exercise caution when using social media for scientific knowledge exchange. Regular evaluations of new technologies are warranted to ensure the quality and rigor of their scientific content. [Table: see text]\",\"PeriodicalId\":15862,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of global oncology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of global oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1200/jgo.2019.5.suppl.16\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of global oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/jgo.2019.5.suppl.16","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Associations between the use of Twitter as a technology platform in oncology and the scientific impact of its users.
16 Background: Social media channels, such as Twitter, represent relatively new technology platforms for scientific users to disseminate research findings and communicate their views and interpretations to colleagues and followers. To date, the associations between the use of Twitter and the scientific impact of its users are unclear. Methods: All Canadian oncologists who are full members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology were identified from the online membership directory. Users of Twitter were defined as those with an active Twitter account, as of June 2019, and posted at least one tweet within the past year. Data regarding the number of tweets, likes, and followers were collected by an online search of Twitter. Scientific impact of each individual was assessed based on a user’s h-index and number of citations from Google Scholar as well as score from Research Gate. Associations were examined with summary statistics and correlation coefficients. Results: We identified 676 eligible oncologists of whom 80 (12%) and 596 (88%) currently use and do not use Twitter. Among the users, the median number (IQR) of tweets, likes, and followers were 196 (45-865), 325 (86-1,246), and 198 (89-449), respectively. The scientific impact of Twitter users versus non-users was statistically similar (see Table). Likewise, within the group of users, there was no correlation between the number of tweets, likes, and followers and the scientific impact of individuals (correlation coefficients 0.38, 0.34, and 0.41, respectively, all p > 0.05). Conclusions: Only 1 in 10 oncologists use Twitter, but those who use Twitter leveraged this technology platform frequently. There was no association between the use of Twitter and the scientific impact of its users. Views from a minority of oncologists are represented on Twitter. Such bias underscores the need to exercise caution when using social media for scientific knowledge exchange. Regular evaluations of new technologies are warranted to ensure the quality and rigor of their scientific content. [Table: see text]
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Global Oncology (JGO) is an online only, open access journal focused on cancer care, research and care delivery issues unique to countries and settings with limited healthcare resources. JGO aims to provide a home for high-quality literature that fulfills a growing need for content describing the array of challenges health care professionals in resource-constrained settings face. Article types include original reports, review articles, commentaries, correspondence/replies, special articles and editorials.