Accessibility navigation

How Twitter is studied in the medical professions: a classification of Twitter papers indexed in PubMed

Williams, S., Terras, M. and Warwick, C. (2013) How Twitter is studied in the medical professions: a classification of Twitter papers indexed in PubMed. Medicine 2.0, 2 (2). e2. ISSN 1923-2195

Text - Published Version
· Please see our End User Agreement before downloading.


It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

To link to this item DOI: 10.2196/med20.2269


Background: Since their inception, Twitter and related microblogging systems have provided a rich source of information for researchers and have attracted interest in their affordances and use. Since 2009 PubMed has included 123 journal articles on medicine and Twitter, but no overview exists as to how the field uses Twitter in research. // Objective: This paper aims to identify published work relating to Twitter indexed by PubMed, and then to classify it. This classification will provide a framework in which future researchers will be able to position their work, and to provide an understanding of the current reach of research using Twitter in medical disciplines. Limiting the study to papers indexed by PubMed ensures the work provides a reproducible benchmark. // Methods: Papers, indexed by PubMed, on Twitter and related topics were identified and reviewed. The papers were then qualitatively classified based on the paper’s title and abstract to determine their focus. The work that was Twitter focused was studied in detail to determine what data, if any, it was based on, and from this a categorization of the data set size used in the studies was developed. Using open coded content analysis additional important categories were also identified, relating to the primary methodology, domain and aspect. // Results: As of 2012, PubMed comprises more than 21 million citations from biomedical literature, and from these a corpus of 134 potentially Twitter related papers were identified, eleven of which were subsequently found not to be relevant. There were no papers prior to 2009 relating to microblogging, a term first used in 2006. Of the remaining 123 papers which mentioned Twitter, thirty were focussed on Twitter (the others referring to it tangentially). The early Twitter focussed papers introduced the topic and highlighted the potential, not carrying out any form of data analysis. The majority of published papers used analytic techniques to sort through thousands, if not millions, of individual tweets, often depending on automated tools to do so. Our analysis demonstrates that researchers are starting to use knowledge discovery methods and data mining techniques to understand vast quantities of tweets: the study of Twitter is becoming quantitative research. // Conclusions: This work is to the best of our knowledge the first overview study of medical related research based on Twitter and related microblogging. We have used five dimensions to categorise published medical related research on Twitter. This classification provides a framework within which researchers studying development and use of Twitter within medical related research, and those undertaking comparative studies of research relating to Twitter in the area of medicine and beyond, can position and ground their work.

Item Type:Article
ID Code:32465
Uncontrolled Keywords:MeSH: Twitter messaging, Twitter messenging, Information Science Free format: Twitter, Microblogging, Papers, Classification, Social Network Systems
Publisher:JMIR Publications
Publisher Statement:This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in Medicine 2.0, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on, as well as this copyright and license information must be included. http://


Downloads per month over past year

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Page navigation