Connecting the Urological Community : The #UroSoMe Experience

Main Article Content

Kalyan Gudaru https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2335-7419
Leonardo Tortolero Blanco
Daniele Castellani
Hegel Trujillo Santamaria
Marcela Pelayo-Nieto
Edgar Linden-Castro
Marcelo Langer Wroclawski
Mateus Consentino Bellote
Jon Mikel Inarritu
Rodrigo Donalisio Da Silva
Vineet Gauhar
Zainal Adwin
Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh

Keywords

Urology, Social media, Internet, Twitter, UroSoMe

Abstract

Background and Objectives


There is an increasing use of social media amongst the urological community. However, it is difficult to identify urological data on various social media platforms in an efficient manner. We proposed a hashtag, #UroSoMe, to be used when posting urology-related content in the social media platforms. The objectives of this article are to describe how #UroSoMe was developed, and to report the data of the first month of #UroSoMe.


 


Material and Methods


The hashtag, #UroSoMe, was introduced to the urological community. The #UroSoMe working group was formed, and the members actively invited and encouraged people to use the hashtag #UroSoMe when posting urology-related contents. After the #UroSoMe (@so_uro) platform on twitter had grown to more than 300 users, the first live event of online case discussion, i.e. #LiveCaseDiscussions, was conducted. A prospective observational study of the hashtag #UroSoMe Twitter activity during the first month of its usage from 14 December 2018 to 13 January 2019 was evaluated. Outcome measures included number of users, number of tweets, user location, top tweeters, top hashtags used and interactions. Analysis was performed using NodeXL (Social Media Research Foundation; California, USA; https://www.smrfoundation.org/nodexl/), Symplur (https:// www.symplur.com) and Twitonomy (https://www.twitonomy.com).


 


Results


The first month of #UroSoMe activity documented 1373 tweets/retweets by 1008 tweeters with 17698 mentions and 1003 replies. The #LiveCaseDiscussions was able to achieve a potential reach of 2,033,352 Twitter users. The top tweets mainly included cases presented by #UroSoMe working group members during #LiveCaseDiscussions. The twitonomy map showed participation from 214 geographical locations. The major groups of participants using the hashtag #UroSoMe were ‘Researcher/Academic’ and ‘Doctor’. The twitter account of #UroSoMe (@so_uro) has now grown to more than 1000 followers.


 


Conclusions


Social media is an excellent platform for interaction amongst the urological community. The results demonstrated that #UroSoMe was able to achieve wide spread engagement from all over the world.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Abstract 517 | pdf Downloads 264

References

1. Davies N, Murphy DG, van Rij S, Woo HH, Lawrentschuk N. Online and social media presence of Australian and New Zealand urologists. BJU Int 2015; 116(6):984-989.
2. Alas A, Sajadi KP, Goldman HB, Anger JT. The rapidly increasing usefulness of social media in urogynecology. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2013; 19(4):210-213.
3. Fode M, Atallah S. Sexual Medicine in the Social Media. J Sex Med 2015; 12(12):2221-2222.
4. Borgmann H, Loeb S, Salem J, Thomas C, Haferkamp A, Murphy DG, Tsaur I. Activity, content, contributors, and influencers of the twitter discussion on urologic oncology. Urol Oncol 2016; 34(9):377-383.
5. Bayne CE, Cardona-Grau D, Hsieh MH. Introducing the Pediatric Urology Journal Club on Twitter. J Pediatr Urol 2017; 13(1):2-3.
6. Murphy DG, Basto M. Social media @BJUIjournal--what a start! BJU Int 2013; 111(7):1007-1009.
7. Hayon S, Tripathi H, Stormont IM, Dunne MM, Naslund MJ, Siddiqui MM. Twitter Mentions and Academic Citations in the Urologic Literature. Urology 2019; 123:28-33.
8. Calopedos RJS, Garcia C, Rashid P, Murphy DG, Lawrentschuk N, Woo HH. Citation indices for social media articles in urology. BJU Int 2017; 119 Suppl 5:47-52.
9. Matta R, Doiron C, Leveridge MJ. The dramatic increase in social media in urology. J Urol 2014; 192(2):494-498.
10. Canvasser NE, Ramo C, Morgan TM, Zheng K, Hollenbeck BK, Ghani KR. The use of social media in endourology: an analysis of the 2013 World Congress of Endourology meeting. J Endourol 2015; 29(5):615-620.
11. @gabrielstricker. The 2014 #YearOnTwitter [Internet]. Available from: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/a/2014/the-2014-yearontwitter.html.
12. @jteoh_hk. The 1st Live Case Discussions presented by #UroSoMe will be on STONE! [Internet] @jteoh_hk. 2019 Available from: https://twitter.com/jteoh_hk/status/1081212114650378240.
13. Brady RRW, Chapman SJ, Atallah S, Chand M, Mayol J, Lacy AM, Wexner SD. #colorectalsurgery. Br J Surg 2017; 104(11):1470-1476.
14. Branford OA, Kamali P, Rohrich RJ, Song DH, Mallucci P, Liu DZ, Lang D, Sun K, Stubican M, Lin SJ. #PlasticSurgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 138(6):1354-1365.
15. Rivas JG, Socarras MR, Blanco LT. Social Media in Urology: opportunities, applications, appropriate use and new horizons. Cent European J Urol 2016; 69(3):293-298.
16. Borgmann H, Cooperberg M, Murphy D, Loeb S, N'Dow J, Ribal MJ, Woo H, Roupret M, Winterbottom A, Wijburg C, Wirth M, Catto J, Kutikov A. Online Professionalism-2018 Update of European Association of Urology (@Uroweb) Recommendations on the Appropriate Use of Social Media. Eur Urol 2018; 74(5):644-650.
17. Roupret M, Morgan TM, Bostrom PJ, Cooperberg MR, Kutikov A, Linton KD, Palou J, Martinez-Pineiro L, van der Poel H, Wijburg C, Winterbottom A, Woo HH, Wirth MP, Catto JW. European Association of Urology (@Uroweb) recommendations on the appropriate use of social media. Eur Urol 2014; 66(4):628-632.
18. Thangasamy IA, Leveridge M, Davies BJ, Finelli A, Stork B, Woo HH. International Urology Journal Club via Twitter: 12-month experience. Eur Urol 2014; 66(1):112-117.
19. Loeb S, Taylor J, Butaney M, Byrne NK, Gao L, Soule HR, Miyahira AK. Twitter-based Prostate Cancer Journal Club (#ProstateJC) Promotes Multidisciplinary Global Scientific Discussion and Research Dissemination. Eur Urol 2019.
20. Union Metrics Help Desk. What do you mean by Twitter reach, exposure, and impressions? [Internet]. Available from: http://unionmetrics.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/201201636-What-do-you-mean-by-Twitter-reach-exposure-and-impressions-.
21. Ke Y, Taylor J, Gao L, Wang H, Zhao H, Byrne N, Modgil V, Butaney M, Makarov DV, Prabhu V, Loeb S. Twitter response to the 2018 US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines on prostate cancer screening. BJU Int 2019.
22. Struck JP, Siegel F, Kramer MW, Tsaur I, Heidenreich A, Haferkamp A, Merseburger AS, Salem J, Borgmann H. Substantial utilization of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram in the prostate cancer community. World J Urol 2018; 36(8):1241-1246.
23. Chung A, Woo H. Twitter in urology and other surgical specialties at global conferences. ANZ J Surg 2016; 86(4):224-227.
24. Loeb S, Bayne CE, Frey C, Davies BJ, Averch TD, Woo HH, Stork B, Cooperberg MR, Eggener SE, American Urological Association Social Media Work G. Use of social media in urology: data from the American Urological Association (AUA). BJU Int 2014; 113(6):993-998.
25. Long X, Qi L, Ou Z, Zu X, Cao Z, Zeng X, Li Y, Chen M, Wang Z, Wang L. Evolving use of social media among Chinese urologists: Opportunity or challenge? PLoS One 2017; 12(7):e0181895.
26. Mackenzie G. Social network analysis: quirks, pitfalls and biases [Internet]. #ScotPublicHealth. 2018. Available from: https://scotpublichealth.com/2018/01/19/social-network-analysis-quirks-pitfalls-and-biases/.
27. Mackenzie G. How to run social media for a health conference: planning, tweeting and summarising [Internet]. #ScotPublicHealth. 2018. Available from: https://scotpublichealth.com/2018/01/30/how-to-run-social-media-for-a-health-conference-planning-tweeting-and-summarising/.
28. Kutikov A, Woo HH, Catto JW. Urology Tag Ontology Project: Standardizing Social Media Communication Descriptors. Eur Urol 2016; 69(2):183-185.