The Prevalence of Financial Conflict of Interest Disclosures by Endovascular Specialists on X (Twitter).

PURPOSE: To evaluate conflicts of interest (COIs) among interventional radiologists and related specialties who mention specific devices or companies on the social media (SoMe) platform X, formerly Twitter. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total, 13,809 posts between October 7, 2021, and December 31, 2021, on X were evaluated. Posts by U.S. interventional radiologists and related specialties who mentioned a specific device or company were identified. A positive COI was defined as receiving a payment from the device manufacturer or company within 36 months prior to posting. The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payment database was used to identify financial payments. The prevalence and value of COIs were assessed and compared between posts mentioning a device or company and a paired control group using descriptive statistics and chi-squared tests and independent t tests. RESULTS: Eighty posts containing the mention of 100 specific devices or companies were evaluated. COIs were present in 53% (53/100). When mentioning a specific device or product, 40% interventional radiologists had a COI, compared with 62% neurosurgeons. Physicians who mentioned a specific device or company were 3.7 times more likely to have a positive COI relative to the paired control group (53/100 vs 14/100; P < .001). Of the 31 physicians with a COI, the median physician received $2,270. None of the positive COIs were disclosed. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians posting on SoMe about a specific device or company were more likely to have a financial COI than authors of posts not mentioning a specific device or company. No disclosure of any COI was present in the posts, limiting followers' ability to weigh potential bias.

Development of a Medical Social Media Ethics Scale and Assessment of #IRad, #CardioTwitter, and #MedTwitter Posts: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Social media posts by clinicians are not bound by the same rules as peer-reviewed publications, raising ethical concerns that have not been extensively characterized or quantified. OBJECTIVE: We aim to develop a scale to assess ethical issues on medical social media (SoMe) and use it to determine the prevalence of these issues among posts with 3 different hashtags: #MedTwitter, #IRad, and #CardioTwitter. METHODS: A scale was developed based on previous descriptions of professionalism and validated via semistructured cognitive interviewing with a sample of 11 clinicians and trainees, interrater agreement, and correlation of 100 posts. The final scale assessed social media posts in 6 domains. This was used to analyze 1500 Twitter posts, 500 each from the 3 hashtags. Analysis of posts was limited to original Twitter posts in English made by health care professionals in North America. The prevalence of potential issues was determined using descriptive statistics and compared across hashtags using the Fisher exact and χ2 tests with Yates correction. RESULTS: The final scale was considered reflective of potential ethical issues of SoMe by participants. There was good interrater agreement (Cohen κ=0.620, P<.01) and moderate to strong positive interrater correlation (=0.602, P<.001). The 6 scale domains showed minimal to no interrelation (Cronbach α=0.206). Ethical concerns across all hashtags had a prevalence of 1.5% or less except the conflict of interest concerns on #IRad, which had a prevalence of 3.6% (n=18). Compared to #MedTwitter, posts with specialty-specific hashtags had more patient privacy and conflict of interest concerns. CONCLUSIONS: The SoMe professionalism scale we developed reliably reflects potential ethical issues. Ethical issues on SoMe are rare but important and vary in prevalence across medical communities.