SynthesisDie Anaesthesiologie2026
[Social media in anesthesiology: a systematic review on typology as well as opportunities and risks].
Synthesis in Die Anaesthesiologie, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSocial media have proliferated globally, with an estimated 5.1-5.5 billion active users and are gaining increasing relevance in anesthesiology. Social media are now firmly established as a medium for knowledge acquisition and information retrieval. In this context, "medfluencers" (individuals and institutions) play a growing role in disseminating health-related and discipline-specific information.
objectiveThe aim of this article is firstly, to develop a clearer understanding of "medfluencers" in anesthesiology and secondly, to synthesize the opportunities and risks of social media for anesthesiology through a structured literature analysis.
methodsFollowing specification of the two core research questions, a systematic literature search was conducted using predefined search strings in PubMed. Relevant contents from identified publications were synthesized into a typology of "medfluencers" and/or opportunities and risks of social media in anesthesiology. The literature search was performed in a systematic PRISMA-oriented manner and due to the heterogeneity of study designs and outcomes a narrative synthesis of the evidence was carried out.
resultsA total of 1727 possible publications were identified and after the screening process 49 articles (original studies and reviews) were included. From the results five types of "medfluencers" in anesthesiology with distinct competencies, resources and aims were delineated. Social media activities in anesthesiology were synthesized into six opportunities and six risks for the respective "medfluencer" groups. DISCUSSION: Virality is not a proxy for quality. Simultaneously, social media create a broad coverage and therefore entail content, ethical and legal responsibility. The use of social media offers novel possibilities for anesthesiology but requires a critical, evidence-based and legally compliant utilization. Concrete mitigation strategies to minimize risks are discussed, from which practical dos and don'ts for "medfluencers" are derived. Further studies are needed to be able to assess the effects on specific anesthesiological practices and the impacts on patient outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.