Mapping and quantification of the twitter footprint of cardiologists

Abstract

Abstract Aims The increasing importance placed by medical journals for dissemination of published articles on social media, such as posting Altmetric scores, has further expedited the need for differentiating bona fide science from pseudo-science. The ‘Kardashian index’ (a.k.a., K-index) was suggested, which correlates the citations of a scientist with his/her Twitter followers. Methods and results From a list of top 100 cardiology hospitals in accordance with the most recent US News and World Report rankings, 1500 cardiologists were selected based on institutional physician profile pages complete with cardiologists’ headshots. The K-index of cardiologists, and variables like all-time posts, and posts for the past 12 months (1 June 2019 to 31 May 2020) from cardiologists were documented and analysed. The K-index of cardiologists in our study was stratified into the following categories (upper boundary inclusive); K-index 0–1 (n = 104); K-index 1–2 (n = 30); K-index 2–3 (n = 24); K-index 3–4 (n = 14); K-index 4–5 (n = 5); and K-index >5 (n = 22). There was no statistically significant difference (P = 0.94) in the citation number across the K-index categories (no consistent pattern observed, median citations ranging from 237 to 610). However, cardiologists with higher K-index categories had a higher number of 12-month posts (median 14 vs. 392 for K-index categories 0–1 and >5, respectively; P-value <0.001). Conclusion Considering no evidence of a difference in the number of citations across K-index categories, the stigma associated with higher K-index needs to be reconsidered.