[Paper Review] Influence of study type on Twitter activity for medical research papers

Jens Peter Andersen, Stefanie Haustein|VBN Forskningsportal (Aalborg Universitet)|Jul 1, 2015

Social Media in Health Education16 citations

TL;DR

This study analyzes how different medical study types influence Twitter activity for research papers, using 162,830 Embase-indexed medical documents. It finds that meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and clinical trials receive significantly more tweets than other study types, while basic research receives less attention, suggesting lay and patient interest may drive altmetric engagement based on perceived clinical relevance.

ABSTRACT

Twitter has been identified as one of the most popular and promising altmetrics data sources, as it possibly reflects a broader use of research articles by the general public. Several factors, such as document age, scientific discipline, number of authors and document type, have been shown to affect the number of tweets received by scientific documents. The particular meaning of tweets mentioning scholarly papers is, however, not entirely understood and their validity as impact indicators debatable. This study contributes to the understanding of factors influencing Twitter popularity of medical papers investigating differences between medical study types. 162,830 documents indexed in Embase to a medical study type have been analysed for the study type specific tweet frequency. Meta-analyses, systematic reviews and clinical trials were found to be tweeted substantially more frequently than other study types, while all basic research received less attention than the average. The findings correspond well with clinical evidence hierarchies. It is suggested that interest from laymen and patients may be a factor in the observed effects.

Motivation & Objective

• To investigate how the type of medical study influences its visibility and engagement on Twitter.
• To assess whether certain study types attract more public attention through social media, particularly from non-academic audiences.
• To evaluate the validity of Twitter activity as an altmetric indicator by linking it to study type and clinical relevance.
• To explore whether the observed differences in tweet frequency align with established clinical evidence hierarchies.

Proposed method

• The study analyzed 162,830 medical research papers indexed in Embase with assigned study types.
• Study types were categorized into clinical and basic research, with subtypes including meta-analyses, systematic reviews, clinical trials, and others.
• Twitter activity was measured by counting the number of tweets per paper using altmetric data.
• The frequency of tweets per study type was compared using statistical analysis to identify significant differences.
• The results were interpreted in light of clinical evidence hierarchies to assess alignment with perceived research impact.

Experimental results

Research questions

• RQ1 Which medical study types generate the highest levels of Twitter engagement?
• RQ2 How does the frequency of tweets about a paper vary by study type, particularly when comparing clinical to basic research?
• RQ3 To what extent do meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and clinical trials receive more attention on Twitter than other study types?
• RQ4 Is the observed pattern of Twitter activity consistent with established clinical evidence hierarchies?
• RQ5 Could public and patient interest be a driving factor behind the observed differences in social media attention?

Key findings

• Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and clinical trials were found to be tweeted substantially more frequently than other study types.
• Basic research studies received less attention on Twitter compared to the average across all study types.
• The tweet frequency distribution across study types closely aligns with traditional clinical evidence hierarchies.
• The findings suggest that Twitter activity may reflect public and patient interest in research with perceived clinical applicability.
• The study supports the use of Twitter as a potential indicator of broader societal impact, particularly for evidence-based clinical research.