↓ Skip to main content

Social media and colorectal cancer: A systematic review of available resources

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS ONE, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
43 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Social media and colorectal cancer: A systematic review of available resources
Published in
PLoS ONE, August 2017
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0183031
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gianluca Pellino, Constantinos Simillis, Shengyang Qiu, Shahnawaz Rasheed, Sarah Mills, Oliver Warren, Christos Kontovounisios, Paris P. Tekkis

Abstract

Social media (SM) can provide information and medical knowledge to patients. Our aim was to review the literature and web-based content on SM that is used by Colorectal Cancer (CRC) patients, as well as surgeons' interaction with SM. Studies published between 2006 and 2016 were assessed. We also assessed the impact of several hashtags on Twitter with a freeware (Symplur). Nine studies were included assessing Twitter (78%), Forums/Cancer-survivor networks (33%), and Facebook (22%). Aims included use of SM by CRC patients (67%), cancer-specific usage of SM with different types of cancer (44%), content credibility (33%), and influence in CRC awareness (33%). Prevention was the most common information that CRC patients looked for, followed by treatment side-effects. Only 2% of CRC SM users are doctors. SM use by colorectal consultants was suboptimal. Only 38% of surgeons had a LinkedIn account (most with less than 50 connections), and 3% used Twitter. A steep increase of tweets was observed for searched Hashtags over time, which was more marked for #ColonCancer (+67%vs+38%, #Coloncancer vs #RectalCancer). Participants engaged with colon cancer increased by 85%, whereas rectal cancer ones increased by 29%. The hashtag '#RectalCancer' was mostly tweeted by colorectal surgeons. The official twitter account of American Society of Colorectal Surgeons (@fascrs_updates) was the most active account. CRC patients and relatives are increasingly engaging with SM. CRC surgeons' participation is poor, but we confirm a trend toward a greater involvement. Most SM lack of authoritative validation and the quality of shared content still is largely anecdotic and not scientifically evidenced-based. However, SM may offer several advantages over conventional information sharing sources for CRC patients and surgeons, and create connections with mutual enrichment.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 29%
Student > Master 6 19%
Librarian 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Researcher 3 10%
Other 6 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 16%
Unspecified 4 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 13%
Chemistry 2 6%
Other 9 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 November 2018.
All research outputs
#540,470
of 12,177,660 outputs
Outputs from PLoS ONE
#10,249
of 133,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,282
of 265,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS ONE
#306
of 2,886 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,177,660 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 133,737 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,306 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,886 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.