Trent Walradt1, Mohammad Bilal2, Vaibhav Wadhwa2, Austin L Chiang3, Tyler M Berzin2. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Division of Gastroenterology, Center for Advanced Endoscopy, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 3. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Thomas Jefferson Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To evaluate compliance with confidentiality and conflicts of interest (COI) in tweets sharing gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy videos/images. METHODS: Physicians' tweets containing GI endoscopy videos/images were assessed for confidentiality and COI compliance. RESULTS: Identifiable details in tweets included procedure date (17.9%), date of birth (0.8%), and patient's face visible (0.5%). Ninety-five tweets (10%) mentioned the name/brand of a medical device. Of the 19 posted by US physicians, 7 came from physicians who had received payments from the device manufacturer. None of these physicians disclosed relevant COI. DISCUSSION: GI endoscopy tweets describing clinical cases or procedures may insufficiently address issues of confidentiality and COI.
INTRODUCTION: To evaluate compliance with confidentiality and conflicts of interest (COI) in tweets sharing gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy videos/images. METHODS: Physicians' tweets containing GI endoscopy videos/images were assessed for confidentiality and COI compliance. RESULTS: Identifiable details in tweets included procedure date (17.9%), date of birth (0.8%), and patient's face visible (0.5%). Ninety-five tweets (10%) mentioned the name/brand of a medical device. Of the 19 posted by US physicians, 7 came from physicians who had received payments from the device manufacturer. None of these physicians disclosed relevant COI. DISCUSSION: GI endoscopy tweets describing clinical cases or procedures may insufficiently address issues of confidentiality and COI.