Hendrik Borgmann1, Jan-Henning Woelm1, Axel Merseburger2, Tim Nestler3, Johannes Salem4, Maximilian P Brandt1, Axel Haferkamp1, Stacy Loeb5. 1. Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Germany; 2. Department of Urology, University Hospital Luebeck, Germany; 3. Department of Urology, Armed Forces Hospital Koblenz, Germany; 4. Department of Urology, St Joseph Hospital, Dortmund, Germany; 5. Department of Urology and Population Health, New York University and Manhattan Veterans Affairs Medical Center, NY, U.S.A.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The microblogging social media platform Twitter is increasingly being adopted in the urologic field. We aimed to analyze participants, tweet strategies, and tweet content of the Twitter discussion at a urologic conference. METHODS: A comprehensive analysis of the Twitter activity at the European Association of Urology Congress 2013 (#eau2013) was performed, including characteristics of user profiles, engagement and popularity measurements, characteristics and timing of tweets, and content analysis. RESULTS: Of 218 Twitter contributors, doctors (45%) were the most frequent, ahead of associations (15%), companies (10%), and journals (3%). However, journals had the highest tweet/participant rate (22 tweets/participant), profile activity (median: 1177, total tweets, 1805 followers, 979 following), and profile popularity (follower/following ratio: 2.1; retweet rank percentile: 96%). Links in a profile were associated with higher engagement (p<0.0001) and popularity (p<0.0001). Of 1572 tweets, 57% were original tweets, 71% contained mentions, 20% contained links, and 25% included pictures. The majority of tweets (88%) were during conference hours, with an average of 24.7 tweets/hour and a peak activity of 71 tweets/hour. Overall, 59% of tweets were informative, led by the topics uro-oncology (21%), urologic research (21%), and urotechnology (12%). Limitations include the analysis of a single conference analysis, assessment of global profile and not domain-specific activity, and the rapid evolution in Twitter-using habits. CONCLUSION: Results of this single conference qualitative analysis are promising for an enrichment of the scientific discussions at urologic conferences through the use of Twitter.
INTRODUCTION: The microblogging social media platform Twitter is increasingly being adopted in the urologic field. We aimed to analyze participants, tweet strategies, and tweet content of the Twitter discussion at a urologic conference. METHODS: A comprehensive analysis of the Twitter activity at the European Association of Urology Congress 2013 (#eau2013) was performed, including characteristics of user profiles, engagement and popularity measurements, characteristics and timing of tweets, and content analysis. RESULTS: Of 218 Twitter contributors, doctors (45%) were the most frequent, ahead of associations (15%), companies (10%), and journals (3%). However, journals had the highest tweet/participant rate (22 tweets/participant), profile activity (median: 1177, total tweets, 1805 followers, 979 following), and profile popularity (follower/following ratio: 2.1; retweet rank percentile: 96%). Links in a profile were associated with higher engagement (p<0.0001) and popularity (p<0.0001). Of 1572 tweets, 57% were original tweets, 71% contained mentions, 20% contained links, and 25% included pictures. The majority of tweets (88%) were during conference hours, with an average of 24.7 tweets/hour and a peak activity of 71 tweets/hour. Overall, 59% of tweets were informative, led by the topics uro-oncology (21%), urologic research (21%), and urotechnology (12%). Limitations include the analysis of a single conference analysis, assessment of global profile and not domain-specific activity, and the rapid evolution in Twitter-using habits. CONCLUSION: Results of this single conference qualitative analysis are promising for an enrichment of the scientific discussions at urologic conferences through the use of Twitter.
Authors: Sarah E Wilkinson; Marnique Y Basto; Greta Perovic; Nathan Lawrentschuk; Declan G Murphy Journal: BJU Int Date: 2015-01-26 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Vinay Prabhu; Ted Lee; Stacy Loeb; John H Holmes; Heather T Gold; Herbert Lepor; David F Penson; Danil V Makarov Journal: BJU Int Date: 2015-03-25 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Michael T Tanoue; Dhananjay Chatterjee; Heajung L Nguyen; Troy Sekimura; Brian H West; David Elashoff; William H Suh; Janet K Han Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2018-11
Authors: Kevan M Sternberg; Stacy L Loeb; David Canes; Laura Donnelly; Mitchell H Tsai Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Macey L Henderson; Joel T Adler; Sarah E Van Pilsum Rasmussen; Alvin G Thomas; Patrick D Herron; Madeleine M Waldram; Jessica M Ruck; Tanjala S Purnell; Sandra R DiBrito; Courtenay M Holscher; Christine E Haugen; Yewande Alimi; Jonathan M Konel; Ann K Eno; Jacqueline M Garonzik Wang; Elisa J Gordon; Krista L Lentine; Randolph L Schaffer; Andrew M Cameron; Dorry L Segev Journal: Transplantation Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Caitlin G Allen; Brittany Andersen; David A Chambers; Jacob Groshek; Megan C Roberts Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2018-02-20 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Yonah C Ziemba; Dana Razzano; Timothy C Allen; Adam L Booth; Scott R Anderson; Anne Champeaux; Michael D Feldman; Valerie Fitzhugh; Simone Gittens; Marilea Grider; Mary Gupta; Christina Hanos; Karen Kelly; Tarush Kothari; Jennifer Laudadio; Amy Y Lin; Kamran M Mirza; Kathleen T Montone; Victor G Prieto; Daniel G Remick; Nicole D Riddle; Michael Schubert; Kelley Suskie; Nadeem Zafar; Stanley J Robboy; Priscilla S Markwood Journal: Acad Pathol Date: 2020-07-17