TY - JOUR AU - Alnemer, Khalid A AU - Alhuzaim, Waleed M AU - Alnemer, Ahmed A AU - Alharbi, Bader B AU - Bawazir, Abdulrahman S AU - Barayyan, Omar R AU - Balaraj, Faisal K PY - 2015 DA - 2015/10/29 TI -健康相关的推文有证据依据吗?JO - J Med Internet Res SP - e246 VL - 17 IS - 10kw -健康KW -疾病KW -日常医疗信息KW -医疗账户KW -健康账户KW -医生账户KW -营养账户AB -背景:卫生保健专业人员正在利用Twitter进行交流，开发疾病监测系统，挖掘健康相关信息。这些健康信息的直接用户是普通大众，包括患者。这就需要卫生保健专业人员对与健康相关的推文进行验证，以确保这些推文是基于证据的，并避免使用不可信的信息作为关键决策的基础。目的:本研究的目的是评估Twitter上与健康相关的推文的有效性(基于证据)，并在社区中提高对基于证据的与健康相关推文的重要性的认识。方法:2015年4月1日至5日发布的所有阿拉伯文健康相关信息的推文都是从推特上挖掘出来的。这些推文根据受欢迎程度、活动、互动和频率进行分类，得到25个推文账户(8个医生账户、10个非官方健康机构账户、4个营养师账户和3个政府机构账户)和625条推文。这些推文由3名美国委员会认证的医疗顾问进行评估，并生成评分(真/假)，并计算观察者之间的一致性。结果:从8个医生账户、10个非官方健康机构账户、4个营养师账户和3个政府机构账户中，共识别出625条与健康相关的阿拉伯语推文。评论者将320条(51.2%)推文标记为假推文，305条(48.8%)标记为真推文。 Comparative analysis of tweets by account type showed 60 of 75 (80%) tweets by government institutes, 124 of 201 (61.7%) tweets by physicians, and 42 of 101 (41.6%) tweets by dieticians were true. The interobserver agreement was moderate (range 0.78-0.22). More than half of the health-related tweets (169/248, 68.1%) from nonofficial health institutes and dietician accounts (59/101, 58.4%) were false. Tweets by the physicians were more likely to be rated “true” compared to other groups (P<.001). Conclusions: Approximately half of the medical tweets from professional accounts on Twitter were found to be false based on expert review. Furthermore, most of the evidence-based health-related tweets are posted by government institutes and physicians. SN - 1438-8871 UR - //www.mybigtv.com/2015/10/e246/ UR - https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4898 UR - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26515535 DO - 10.2196/jmir.4898 ID - info:doi/10.2196/jmir.4898 ER -