#colorectalsurgery. BJS 2017; 104: 1470-1476.
Published: 7th September 2017
Authors: R. R. W. Brady, S. J. Chapman, S. Atallah, M. Chand, J. Mayol, A. M. Lacy et al.
The use of social media platforms among healthcare professionals is increasing. A Twitter social media campaign promoting the hashtag #colorectalsurgery was launched with the aim of providing a specialty‐specific forum to collate discussions and science relevant to an engaged, global community of coloproctologists. This article reviews initial experiences of the early adoption, engagement and utilization of this pilot initiative.
The hashtag #colorectalsurgery was promoted via the online microblogging service Twitter across a 180‐day interval. Data on all tweets containing the #colorectalsurgery hashtag were analysed using online analytical tools. Data included total number of tweets, number of views, and user engagement since registration and launch of the campaign. Content of tweet and user demographic analysis was undertaken.
The number of tweets using #colorectalsurgery grew rapidly following the launch on 24 April 2016; #colorectalsurgery was used in 15 708 tweets, which resulted in 65 398 696 impressions and involved 1863 individual Twitter accounts. Increased volumes of #colorectalsurgery tweets were noted in association with the timing of three major international colorectal surgical conferences, and geographical trends were noted. Some 88·4 per cent of all posts were by male users. The top 25 users by volume of #colorectalsurgery tweets had considerable influence and posted 8023 tweets (51·1 per cent).
Online global communities formed via healthcare‐related hashtags, such as #colorectalsurgery, unify social media posts, scientists, surgeons and authors who have an interest in coloproctology. Furthermore, they facilitate greater connectivity among geographically separate users.Read more
You may also be interested in
Authors: E. J. Ryan, E. M. Creagh
Effect of Akt activation and experimental pharmacological inhibition on responses to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer. BJS 2018; 105: e192-e203.
Authors: F. C. Koyama, C. M. Lopes Ramos, F. Ledesma, V. A. F. Alves, J. M. Fernandes, B. B. Vailati et al.
Notes: Molecular enhancement of treatment
Clinicopathological, genomic and immunological factors in colorectal cancer prognosis. BJS 2018; 105: e99-e109.
Authors: K. M. Marks, N. P. West, E. Morris, P. Quirke
Notes: Defines modern practice
Gut microbiome influences on anastomotic leak and recurrence rates following colorectal cancer surgery. BJS 2018; 105: e131-e141.
Authors: S. Gaines, C. Shao, N. Hyman, J. C. Alverdy
Notes: A neglected frontier
Circulating tumour cells and DNA as liquid biopsies in gastrointestinal cancer. BJS 2018; 105: e110-e120.
Authors: O. Nordgård, K. Tjensvoll, B. Gilje, K. Søreide
Notes: The inner space frontier
Histopathological and molecular classification of colorectal cancer and corresponding peritoneal metastases. BJS 2018; 105: e204-e211.
Authors: I. Ubink, W. J. van Eden, P. Snaebjornsson, N. F. M. Kok, J. van Kuik, W. M. U. van Grevenstein et al.
Notes: Mesenchymal subtype predominates
Growth rates of pulmonary metastases after liver transplantation for unresectable colorectal liver metastases. BJS 2018; 105: 295-301.
Authors: H. Grut, S. Solberg, T. Seierstad, M. E. Revheim, T. S. Egge, S. G. Larsen et al.
Notes: Immunosuppression may not accelerate growth
Preliminary results of a cohort study of induction chemotherapy‐based treatment for locally recurrent rectal cancer.
Authors: D. M. G. I. van Zoggel, S. J. Bosman, M. Kusters, G. A. P. Nieuwenhuijzen, J. S. Cnossen, G. J. Creemers et al.
Notes: Promising responses
Quality of life in a randomized trial of early closure of temporary ileostomy after rectal resection for cancer (EASY trial). BJS 2018; 105: 244-251.
Authors: J. Park, A. K. Danielsen, E. Angenete, D. Bock, A. C. Marinez, E. Haglind et al.
Notes: No different after early ileostomy closure
Meta‐analysis of outcomes following resection of the primary tumour in patients presenting with metastatic colorectal cancer.
Authors: U. Nitsche, C. Stöß, L. Stecher, D. Wilhelm, H. Friess, G. O. Ceyhan et al.
Notes: Selected patients only
MRI‐based score to predict surgical difficulty in patients with rectal cancer. BJS 2018; 105: 140-146.
Authors: L. Escal, S. Nougaret, B. Guiu, M. M. Bertrand, H. de Forges, R. Tetreau et al.
Notes: Imaging criteria predict surgical difficulty
Population‐based study of factors predicting treatment intention in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer. BJS 2017; 104: 1866-1873.
Authors: K. Westberg, G. Palmer, F. Hjern, C. Nordenvall, H. Johansson, T. Holm et al.
Notes: Defines good selection criteria