| Literature DB >> 35716889 |
Sergi Sanchez-Cordero1, Salvador Morales-Conde2, Raquel Sánchez Santos3, Inés Rubio Perez4, Roser Farré Font5, Jose Luis Ramos Rodriguez6, José M Balibrea Del Castillo7, Julio Mayol8.
Abstract
AIM: The objective of this study is to analyze the impact of the congresses of the American College of Surgeons (ACSCC2020) and the National Surgery Congress of the Spanish Association of Surgeons (CNC2020) in virtual format due to the SARS-CoV2 pandemic according to the fingerprint.Entities:
Keywords: American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress; Asociación Española de Cirujanos; Asociación española de Cirujanos; COVID19; Congreso Nacional de Cirugía; Impresiones; Impressions; Redes sociales; SARS-CoV-2; Social network; Twitter
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35716889 PMCID: PMC9444146 DOI: 10.1016/j.cireng.2022.06.017
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cir Esp (Engl Ed) ISSN: 2173-5077
Historical evolution of tweets, participants, impressions and ratios per congressman and user per year.
| Year | [0,2–3]Tweets | [0,4–5]Participants in Twitter | [0,6–7]Impressions | [0,8–9]Ratio of active users (tweets/participant) | [0,10–11]Ratio of active congress attendees(tweets/attendee) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACSCC | CNC | ACSCC | CNC | ACSCC | CNC | ACSCC | CNC | ACSCC | CNC | |
| 2015 | 12,800 | 483 | 2700 | 102 | 45,000,000 | 830,000 | 4.74 | 4.74 | 2.41 | 10.61 |
| 2016 | 18,300 | 3049 | 4100 | 398 | 69,100,000 | 5,800,000 | 4.46 | 7.66 | 1.58 | 3.3 |
| 2017 | 24,700 | 2028 | 6500 | 345 | 115,100,000 | 4,700,000 | 3.8 | 5.88 | 1.07 | 2.77 |
| 2018 | 19,700 | 5200 | 6300 | 830 | 90,700,000 | 9,600,000 | 3.13 | 6.27 | 1.07 | 1.48 |
| 2019 | 19,300 | 2329 | 6500 | 528 | 91,100,000 | 4,740,000 | 2.97 | 4.41 | 1.03 | 2.14 |
| 2020 | 10,418 | 10,400 | 3244 | 478 | 81,130,000 | 13,237,000 | 3.21 | 21.76 | 9.25 | 5.84 |
Fig. 1Evolution of the number of tweets, participants and impressions of the ACSCC between 2015 and 2020. There is a growth in tweets and impressions until 2017. Subsequently, the number of tweets falls, but the overall number of impressions is maintained. The number of participants is stable over the years.
Fig. 2Evolution of the number of tweets, participants and impressions of the CNC between 2015 and 2020. We observe a growth in the number of tweets and impressions over the years. The number of participants remains stable over the years.
Most influential, most prolific accounts and those that generated the highest number of impressions. The top 10 most influential accounts of #ACSCC20 generated an average of 5.9 million (±4.3 million) per account and a total of 73.7% of the total impressions of the congress.
| [0,1–6]#ACSCC20 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [0,1–2]Most influential | [0,3–4]Most prolific | [0,5–6]Most impressions | |||
| ***AmCollSurgeons | 100 | ***pferrada1 | 654 | ***juliomayol | 12,900,000 |
| ***Swexner | 83 | ***TomVargueseJr | 335 | ***pferrada1 | 11,300,000 |
| ***pferrada1 | 79 | ***juliomayol | 297 | ***NeilFlochMD | 9,300,000 |
| ***TomVargheseJr | 64 | ***SWexner | 227 | ***AmCollSurgeons | 7,800,000 |
| ***juliomayol | 63 | ***PipeCabreraV | 185 | ***TomVargheseJr | 7,300,000 |
| ***pturnermd | 58 | ***Cirbosque | 163 | ***Swexner | 4,300,000 |
| ***PipeCabreraV | 53 | ***MISIRG1 | 137 | ***JosephSakran | 2,500,000 |
| ***NeilFlochMD | 51 | ***AmCollSurgeons | 119 | ***NEJM | 1,500,000 |
| ***Cirbosque | 49 | ***1980_welsh | 94 | ***Cirbosuqe | 1,500,000 |
| ***WomenSurgeons | 46 | ***arwmd | 87 | ***WomenSurgeons | 1,400,000 |
Source: Symplur.
Most influential, most prolific accounts and those that generated the highest number of impressions. The 10 most influential accounts generated an average of 1.2 million (±2.4 million) impressions per account and a total of 86.9% of the congress's total impressions.
| [0,1–6]#cncirugia2020 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [0,1–2]Most influential | [0,3–4]Most prolific | [0,5–6]Most impressions | |||
| ***aecirujanos | 100 | ***aecirujanos | 389 | ***juliomayol | 7,700,000 |
| ***cncirugia2020 | 93 | ***cncirugia2020 | 265 | ***aecirujanos | 3,500,000 |
| ***smoraIesconde | 82 | ***cjGomez | 234 | ***Some4Surgery1Tl | 379,000 |
| ***juliomayol | 76 | ***Some4SurgerylT1 | 183 | ***CelestinoGutirr | 369,300 |
| ***raquelsanchezdr | 74 | ***juliomayol | 173 | ***cjGomez22 | 265,500 |
| ***cjGomez22 | 69 | ***rafagdiazgobbo | 120 | ***cncirugia2020 | 212,300 |
| ***rafagdiazgobbo | 63 | ***smoralesconde | 108 | ***smoralesconde | 208,700 |
| ***InesRPsurg | 60 | ***raquelsanchezdr | 108 | ***raquelsanchezdr | 149,500 |
| ***Cesar_Ginesta | 59 | ***Wigorita | 63 | ***coloproctoaec | 102,500 |
| ***aecformacion | 56 | ***CelestinoGutirr | 44 | ***rafagdiazgobbo | 98,200 |
Source: Symplur.
Comparison between the top 10 accounts of each congress (mean and SD). Mann-Whitney test. There are statistically significant differences between the most prolific accounts of the ACSCC and CNC congresses.
| [0,2–4]Outstanding accounts of #ACSCC20 y #CNCirugia2020 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ACSCC | CNC | ||
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | ||
| Top 10 | 64.6 (17.5) | 73.2 (14.86) | .198 |
| Influential | 5,980,000 (4,324,555.2) | 1,298,500 (2,475,673.1) | .450 |
| Prolific | 2298 (170.5) | 168.7 (104.7) | .002 |
Data obtained from Symplur.