RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Perineum sunning/tanning is a potentially harmful yet popular new health trend cultivated by a viral social media post, famous public figures, and subsequent media coverage. OBJECTIVE: Our primary objective is to evaluate public interest in perineum sunning/tanning. METHODS: Using an observational study design, we extracted data from Google Trends for the terms "perineum sunning," "perineum tanning," "Metaphysical Meagan," and "Josh Brolin"; and Twitter (via SproutSocial) for "perineum sunning" and "perineum tanning" from November 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019. UberSuggest was used to investigate monthly search volumes and user engagement. We used data from Google Trends and Twitter to construct autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models to forecast public interest in perineum sunning and perineum tanning had the post on social media never occurred. Next, we performed an integral function to calculate the cumulative increase in "perineum tanning" from the day after the post occurred to the end of the year as the area between the forecasted values and the actual values. Using Welch t tests, we compared forecasted and actual values for "perineum sunning" and "perineum tanning" using Twitter and Google Trends data over 1-, 2-, and 4-week periods after the social media post to determine if the increased volumes were statistically significant over time. Lastly, we monitored Google Trends for "perineum sunning" and "perineum tanning" through September 30, 2020, to capture trends during the summer months. RESULTS: Before the Instagram post went viral, there was no search interest in perineum sunning. ARIMA modeling for perineum tanning forecasted no increase in searches (0.00) if the post had not gone viral, while actual interest conveyed a relative cumulative increase of 919.00% from the day the post went viral through December 31, 2020. The term "perineum sunning" was mentioned on average 804 (SD 766.1) times daily for this 7-day period, which was also significantly higher than predicted (P≤.03), totaling 5628 tweets for these 7 days. The increased volume of tweets and relative search interest from Google Trends remained significantly higher for both terms over the 1-, 2-, and 4-week intervals. User engagement showed that nearly 50% of people who searched for "perineum sunning" were likely to click a returned link for more information. Continued observance of search interest in perineum sunning demonstrated interest spikes in the summer months, June and July 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Google Trends and Twitter data demonstrated that one social media post claiming non-evidence-based health benefits of regular sun exposure-without the use of sunscreen-generated significant public interest. Medical journals, dermatologists, and other health care professionals are obligated to educate and correct public misperceptions about viral wellness trends such as perineum sunning.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) may influence or undermine the credibility of clinical practice guidelines or society recommendations. Given the wide regard of such publications, understanding the prevalence and extent of FCOIs among their authors is essential. METHODS: The most current guidelines containing recommendations for breast cancer screening from the US Preventive Services Task Force, American Cancer Society, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, International Agency for Research on Cancer, ACR, and American College of Physicians were retrieved from their respective organizational websites. Industry payments received by authors were then extracted using CMS Open Payments database (OPD), and the values and types of these payments were evaluated. Finally, financial disclosures were compared with open payments. RESULTS: Among a total of 43 authors and 7 guideline documents, 14 authors (33%) received at least one industry payment according to OPD payment records, whereas a majority of 29 authors (67%) had none. The median total payment from all sources across all breast imaging guidelines was $0 (interquartile range, $0-$84). Four authors (9%) declared at least one significant FCOI, five (12%) received more than $5,000 from a single company in a single year, and one author had a significant FCOI (2%) identified from OPD records but not disclosed within the guideline document. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that FCOIs likely have little to no influence on the adoption of consensus recommendations regarding routine screening mammography for all cohorts of women.
