Published on in Vol 10 (2024)

This is a member publication of University of Stirling (Jisc)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/45291, first published .
Impact of a New Gynecologic Oncology Hashtag During Virtual-Only ASCO Annual Meetings: An X (Twitter) Social Network Analysis

Impact of a New Gynecologic Oncology Hashtag During Virtual-Only ASCO Annual Meetings: An X (Twitter) Social Network Analysis

Impact of a New Gynecologic Oncology Hashtag During Virtual-Only ASCO Annual Meetings: An X (Twitter) Social Network Analysis

1Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Command Hospital Kolkata, , Kolkata, , India

2Department of Global Health, Koç University Graduate School of Health Sciences, , Istanbul, , Turkey

3Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Schleswig-Holstein, , Kiel, , Germany

4Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, , Surrey, , United Kingdom

5Health Promotion in Rural Areas Research Group, Gerència d'Atenció Primària i a la Comunitat de la Catalunya Central, Institut Català de la Salut, , Manresa, , Spain

6Faculty of Medicine, University of Vic-Central University of Catalonia, , Vic, , Spain

7Unitat de Suport a la Recerca de la Catalunya Central, Fundació Institut Universitari per a la Recerca a l'Atenció Primària de Salut Jordi Gol i Gurina, , Manresa, , Spain

8eHealth Lab Research Group, School of Health Sciences and eHealth Centre, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC), , Barcelona, , Spain

9Stirling Management School, Stirling University, , FK9 4LA, Stirling, , United Kingdom

Corresponding Author:

Wasim Ahmed, BA, MSc, PhD


Background: Official conference hashtags are commonly used to promote tweeting and social media engagement. The reach and impact of introducing a new hashtag during an oncology conference have yet to be studied. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) conducts an annual global meeting, which was entirely virtual due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021.

Objective: This study aimed to assess the reach and impact (in the form of vertices and edges generated) and X (formerly Twitter) activity of the new hashtags #goASCO20 and #goASCO21 in the ASCO 2020 and 2021 virtual conferences.

Methods: New hashtags (#goASCO20 and #goASCO21) were created for the ASCO virtual conferences in 2020 and 2021 to help focus gynecologic oncology discussion at the ASCO meetings. Data were retrieved using these hashtags (#goASCO20 for 2020 and #goASCO21 for 2021). A social network analysis was performed using the NodeXL software application.

Results: The hashtags #goASCO20 and #goASCO21 had similar impacts on the social network. Analysis of the reach and impact of the individual hashtags found #goASCO20 to have 150 vertices and 2519 total edges and #goASCO20 to have 174 vertices and 2062 total edges. Mentions and tweets between 2020 and 2021 were also similar. The circles representing different users were spatially arranged in a more balanced way in 2021. Tweets using the #goASCO21 hashtag received significantly more responses than tweets using #goASCO20 (75 times in 2020 vs 360 times in 2021; z value=16.63 and P<.001). This indicates increased engagement in the subsequent year.

Conclusions: Introducing a gynecologic oncology specialty–specific hashtag (#goASCO20 and #goASCO21) that is related but different from the official conference hashtag (#ASCO20 and #ASCO21) helped facilitate discussion on topics of interest to gynecologic oncologists during a virtual pan-oncology meeting. This impact was visible in the social network analysis.

JMIR Med Educ 2024;10:e45291

doi:10.2196/45291

Keywords



X (formerly Twitter) has emerged as one of the social media platforms most frequently used by health care professionals [1]. In addition to individuals sharing information and networking, several academic groups, scientific societies, medical journals, and conference organizers use Twitter for educational purposes [2-4]. The reach and impact of conference hashtags have been studied previously [5-7]. Scientific conferences and academic meetings promote dedicated “conference hashtags” and encourage attendees to share their insights, experiences, and learning on the web through social media. Similarly, a study demonstrated the significant impact of a social media ambassador program during the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) congresses on Twitter, highlighting substantial increases in engagement metrics and follower growth, thus advocating for the efficacy of such initiatives in enhancing congress-related engagement and visibility [8]. Furthermore, another study assessed the impact and reach of the 2020 World Gynecologic Oncology Day Twitter campaign, revealing significant participation from health care professionals and the effectiveness of the #WorldGODay hashtag in raising awareness for gynecologic cancers [9].

The official hashtag is announced in advance and widely disseminated on various social media channels [3]. These hashtags are also displayed across conference venues, and some conferences even display live tweeting during designated scientific sessions or plenaries. The aim is to disseminate meeting information and learning to attendees as well as the wider scientific community.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on scientific conferences. Many meetings were canceled, and others became virtual. Going virtual has affected the use of Twitter during meetings. Beste et al [10] found that the number of tweets and Twitter users at a virtual conference compared to the previous year’s in-person meeting reflected the decline in the number of registrations between the 2 years.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting has used its official hashtag, #ASCO, since 2011 [11]. ASCO meetings are one of the largest gatherings of oncology professionals globally. Conversations on the web and offline center around particular topics of interest, subspecialties, and the latest evidence. The COVID-19 pandemic forced both the 2020 and 2021 ASCO meetings to be held virtually. New hashtags (#goASCO20 and #goASCO21) were created for the ASCO virtual conferences in 2020 and 2021 to encourage focused gynecologic oncology discussions at the ASCO meetings. As ASCO meetings cover all oncology topics, subspecialties conversations relating to particular tumor types or subspecialties could get lost in the general discussion. Our study aimed to investigate the impact of virtualization on Twitter engagement during virtual-only ASCO annual meetings, with a focus on gynecologic oncology, and explore strategies for enhancing focused discussions and knowledge dissemination through dedicated conference hashtags.


Data Collection

Twitter data were retrieved using the hashtags #goASCO20 and #goASCO21 for 2020 and 2021, respectively. Data from the whole year were retrieved from the year each conference took place (from January to December) for each meeting using the Academic Track Twitter application programming interface, which provides access to all tweets [12].

Data Analysis

Data (influential users, topics, web sources, and social network analysis) were analyzed using social network analysis in the NodeXL software application (Social Media Research Foundation) [10], allowing an understanding of the shape of the conversation. Both graphs’ vertices were clustered using the Clauset-Newman-Moore cluster algorithm to generate network visuals. The graphs were then laid out using the Harel-Koren Fast Multiscale layout algorithm. Authors in previous publications have used this methodology successfully [13-15]. Circles with lines between them represent individual Twitter users or accounts: the “mentions” and “replies.” The size of the circles means how influential the user is, with bigger circles representing more influential users. The visuals presented illustrate the interactions between Twitter users. Multimedia Appendix 1 provides a compiled list of terms related to social media research for readers’ ease of understanding. We also applied a 2-proportion z test to determine whether the change in response rates between 2020 and 2021 were statistically significant. This allowed an understanding of the shape of connections resulting from conversations to be visualized.

Visuals were created to provide an overview of the resulting social networks. Dots represent users. The green lines shown between users are known as “edges.” Edges indicate both the presence and strength of a relationship between a user. There is an edge for each “reply” and “mention” and a “self-loop edge” for each tweet that is neither a “reply” nor a “mention.” The “betweenness centrality” score was used to rank the size of the nodes. This score measures the influence of an individual “vertex” (an individual Twitter user, also referred to as a “node”) on the flow of information between all other “vertices.” This score assumes that information flows along the shortest paths between vertices. In each group, various color dots are bigger than others, indicating that these users are more influential. In addition, green lines from these groups indicate a serious relationship with other users and highlight how they have a strong influence.

Ethical Considerations

This study gained ethical approval from Newcastle University (Ref: 26055/2022). Twitter users who have been named in the study were personally contacted by the authors and provided their consent before their names or Twitter handles were published.


Overview of the Social Networks

The most frequently used words or hashtags are highlighted in each group in Figure 1. At the top right of each group, the most used hashtags in order of interaction can be seen. For example, in group 1, the hashtag used the most was #ASCO20, while in groups 2, 3, and 4, it was #goASCO20. It is evident from the figure that different groups discussed varied topics, as depicted by other hashtags apart from #ASCO20 and #goASCO20. Figure 1 illustrates how the various communities of users shared and tweeted the #goASCO20 hashtag. Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 have an increased number of green lines between them, indicating that their users were tweeting and mentioning one another frequently. Group 3 additionally has red lines connecting itself to groups 2 and 4. The red lines indicate stronger connections in social networks.

Figure 1. A visual overview of the #goASCO20 Twitter network. ASCO: American Society of Clinical Oncology; G: group.

The most used hashtag was #goASCO21. Different groups of users talked about various topics using the same hashtags. Green lines between groups indicate their relationship and influence on other users. Figure 2 illustrates the various communities of users who shared and tweeted #goASCO21, and all the groups have many green lines between them, indicating that the users were tweeting and mentioning one another. In addition, group 3 strongly influences other groups (red lines), especially group 2. Only 1 circle is more prominent than others in groups 1 and 3, indicating that these users were more influential. Other groups have circles of variable size, showing no clear influential user. In Figure 2, group 3 has more relationships (edges) with other groups than in Figure 1. The most promoted hashtags by group 3 in 2020 were #goASCO20, #ASCO20, #ASCO, and #gyncsm and in 2021 were #goASCO21, #ASCO21, #ASCO, and #ovariancancer.

Figure 2. A visual overview of the #goASCO21 Twitter network. ASCO: American Society of Clinical Oncology; G: group.

In 2021, the circles representing Twitter users were spatially arranged in a more balanced way, indicating that there were more users among the different groups in 2021. The increased lines between them illustrate an increase in cross-group discussion.

Overview of Network Metrics

Table 1 summarizes the network metrics for #goASCO20 and #goASCO21. The 240 tweets using #goASCO20 had 150 unique users and 2519 total edges. The 243 tweets using #goASCO21 had 174 unique users and 2062 total edges. A 16% (174 vs 150 unique users) increase in Twitter use was observed between 2020 and 2021. In 2020, the tweets formed 5 types of edges (mentions, retweets, replies, mention in retweets, and quote tweets) in which #goASCO20 was tagged. These tweets were mentioned 903 times, replied to 75 times, retweeted 367 times, and mentioned in retweets 934 times. In 2021, the tweets also formed 5 types of edges in which #goASCO21 was tagged: these tweets were mentioned 870 times, replied to 360 times, retweeted 33 times, and mentioned in retweets 556 times. To determine if the increase in responses to tweets using the #goASCO21 hashtag compared to the #goASCO20 hashtag was statistically significant, a 2-proportion z test was conducted. We compared the proportion of responses for each hashtag (360/2062, 17.5% for #goASCO21 and 75/2519, 3% for #goASCO20). The test resulted in a z value of approximately 16.63 and a P value <.001, indicating that the difference in response rates is statistically significant.

Table 1. Overview of network metrics (#goASCO20 and #goASCO21).
Graph metric#goASCO20, n#goASCO21, nChange, n (%)a
Graph typesDirectedDirectedb
Vertices (unique users)15017424 (16)
Unique edges5055050 (0)
Edges with duplicates20141557−457 (−22.7)
Total edges25192062−457 (−18)
Edge types550 (0)
Mentions903870−33 (−3.6)
Mentions in retweet934556−378 (−40.5)
Replies75360285 (380)
Retweets36733−334 (−91)
Tweets2402433 (1.2)

aThe denominator (N) is the #goASCO20 value.

bNot applicable.

Table 2 presents an overview of the top 10 users promoting #goASCO20 and #goASCO21. This study identified 10 influential users based on their location in the network and their “betweenness centrality” score. The rank column orders the users by their “betweenness centrality” score, which reports the influence a user exerts on other users. The “in-degree” value depicts the number of times other users have mentioned an account in their tweets. Users having a high “in-degree” value means that other Twitter users consider them to have high levels of trustworthiness. For example, the user who ranked first in 2020 (@esragbilir) has been mentioned 30 times by other users. The “out-degree” value measures the number of times users mention other users in their tweets. The user who ranked first in 2020 had mentioned other users 90 times in her tweets. The top 3 users in the 2020 ranking (@esragbilir, @Bhandoria, and @ChristinaUwins) belong to the accounts of 3 authors of this study. They have a similar level of trustworthiness, and the first in the 2020 ranking is the user who has mentioned other users the most. The fourth rank in 2020 belongs to @ASCO, the user with the highest level of trustworthiness because of its high “in-degree” value.

Table 2. Overview of top users (#goASCO20 and #goASCO21).
Rank#goASCO20#goASCO21
UserIn-degree valueOut-degree valueBetweenness centrality scoreFollowers, nUserIn-degree valueOut-degree valueBetweenness centrality scoreFollowers, n
1@esragbilira30907688.5821355@esragbilira1711013315.0761355
2@Bhandoriaa30584150.2231174@Bhandoriaa377011371.6261174
3@ChristinaUwinsa30522704.416888@BatistaTP10522103.704727
4@ASCO4311686.453125,888@DrFMartinelli14151474.510709
5@XXXXXb4531459.9601329@gyncsm14161403.2065726
6@GOG95876.668824@AinhoaMada1961391.266351
7@RossFH187846.868836@drmnevsmne2841104.949428
8@AinhoaMada71840.000351@PayamKashiMD11351040.5342523
9@BatistaTP1212729.352727@was3210a114806.2549943
10@gyncsm99703.7345726@dsmgyo129659.0311246

aProject team members.

bTwitter handle anonymized.

The user who ranked first in 2021 (@esragbilir) was mentioned 17 times by other users in their tweets and mentioned other users 110 times in her tweets. The top 2 users in the ranking in 2021 belong to the accounts of 2 authors of this study, as in the previous year. @Bhandoria had a higher level of trustworthiness than the first user in the ranking, and @esragbilir mentioned other users more than @Bhandoria. The third in rank is @BatistaTP, a gynecologic oncology surgeon. The fourth place in the ranking in 2021 belongs to @DrFMartinelli, a gynecologist specializing in oncology. The fifth place in the ranking belongs to @gyncsm, a community for those impacted by gynecologic cancers.

Table 3 provides an overview of the top 20 cowords used with #goASCO20 and #goASCO21.

Table 3. Overview of the top 20 cowords used with hashtags #goASCO20 and #goASCO21.
Rank#goASCO20#goASCO21
Word 1Word 2Count, nWord 1Word 2Count, n
1#gyncsm#some4gynonc130#asco21asco88
2bhandoriachristinauwins106#goasco21#eva_asco202172
3#womeninstem#gyncsm100#goasco21#asco2172
4christinauwinsilkerselcukmd94sbco_oficialbr_gynoncgroup60
5asco#asco2092#eva_asco2021#sbco60
6gynaecologicalncology89#sbco#asco2160
7use#goasco2088sgo_orggog59
8#goasco20#asco2083asco#gynecologiconcology58
9during#asco2080gogesgo_society56
10followuse79esgo_societyessonews56
11#some4gynonc#somedocs69essonewssbco_oficial56
12#somedocs#medtwitter69br_gynoncgroupijgconline56
13#asco20#gyncsm66ijgconlineigcsociety56
14promoteraiseawareness63igcsocietygyncsm54
15raiseawareness#gynecologiconcology63#asco21#goasco2142
16sharedphotos58#asco21#gyncsm31
17photosapp58christinauwinswas321025
18appphoto58#cervicalcancer#endometrialcancer25
19esragbilirbhandoria55#cervicalcancer#goasco2124
20#goasco20promote55#goasco21clin24

In 2020, the cowords used the most with the studied hashtag were #gyncsm and #some4gynonc (130 times). #Gyncsm is a community for those impacted by gynecologic cancers. #Some4gynonc is a social media group promoting the goal of curing gynecologic cancer globally. In second place, 2 users were mentioned 106 times with #goASCO20: @Bhandoria, a gyneoncologist and obstetrician, and @ChristinaUwins, a surgeon and senior research fellow in robotic gynecologic oncology. In third place, 2 hashtags (#womeninstem and #gynscm) were used 100 times. The hashtag #womeninstem promotes women and gender equality in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. In fourth place, there were 2 users, both of whom were mentioned 94 times with #goASCO20. Finally, the fifth place belongs to the hashtags #asco and #goasco20, and both were mentioned 92 times with #goASCO20.

In 2021, the cowords used the most with #goASCO21 were #asco21 and #asco (88 times). In second place, #asco21 and #eva_asco2021 were used 72 times. The first refers to the ASCO, and the second (#eva_asco2021) refers to a group focused on gynecologic tumors from Brazil. The third most used cowords (72 times) were hashtags that promoted the spread of clinical knowledge (#goASCO21 and #asco21). The fourth-ranked cowords (60 times) were sbco_oficial, a Brazilian society of oncologic surgery, and br_gynoncgroup, a Brazilian gynecologic oncology group. The last word pairs in the top 5 most used cowords were #eva_asco2021, a group focused on gynecologic tumors from Brazil, and #sbco, a hashtag used to refer to the Brazilian Society of Oncologic Surgery.


Principal Findings

This study hypothesized that introducing a new hashtag specific to gynecologic oncology could provide a focus for tweeting about gynecologic cancers. A new hashtag, #goASCO20, was presented on Twitter during the ASCO 2020 virtual conference and was replaced with #goASCO21 in 2021. Conference attendees were encouraged to use these new hashtags when discussing anything related to gynecologic cancers. The use of these new hashtags was actively encouraged. Users who promoted the hashtag in 2020 did not tend to respond to tweets but, in 2021, increased their response rate (75 times in 2020 vs 360 times in 2021). This shows that the gynecologic oncology community started engaging better in the second virtual congress. Consistent use of hashtags has enhanced Twitter engagement, as evident in the study by Morgan et al [15]. The cumulative number of impressions for #ASCO16 was 468.2 million compared with approximately 1.12 billion for #ASCO20 [15]. We predict a similar growth of #goASCO if its use is continued.

COVID-19 played a crucial role in social media use among the oncology community. It forced the annual meeting to go entirely virtual. As evidenced by our study, the conference attendees used social media channels more to interact.

The 2 users who promoted the hashtags the most were the same in 2020 and 2021. It should be noted that @esragbilir and @Bhandoria significantly increased their “betweenness centrality” score, indicating that their location in the network became more influential among the users. Establishing a core social media team that actively promotes it is essential.

Strengths and Weaknesses

This is the first study where a new hashtag was introduced and social media interaction was measured. This study contributes to the literature on this topic, highlighting how networks can be used to spread trustworthy information and share relevant information among the scientific community on Twitter.

A limitation of this study is that it was not designed to assess the validity of any tweets but to evaluate the success of promoting the use of a gynecologic oncology–specific hashtag in increasing interaction between individual Twitter users and organizations. Misinformation on Twitter is a recognized phenomenon; future studies should investigate whether the quality and quantity of discussion are affected [16]. Since the inception of oncology hashtags, we acknowledge the existence of the gynecology-specific hashtag #gyncsm [17]. We created the #goASCO hashtags to study its impact as #gyncsm is used more by patients with gynecologic cancer and their advocates [18]. We should have examined the effect of #gyncsm during these virtual meetings, and this may be seen as a weakness, with no comparator group being available. Lastly, some of the “influential Twitter users” named in the results included a few authors. However, this is not aimed at self-promotion but is part of the results’ description.

Conclusion

The use of a gynecologic cancer–specific hashtag helped facilitate discussion on topics in gynecologic oncology on Twitter during the 2020 and 2021 ASCO virtual meetings. This impact was visible in the social network analysis.

Data Availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors' Contributions

EB, GB, and CU contributed to conceptualization. WA, JV-A, and AF-C contributed to data curation and analysis. GB and EB contributed to project administration. All authors contributed to writing–original draft and writing–review and editing.

Multimedia Appendix 1

Terms related to social media research.

DOCX File, 13 KB

  1. Pershad Y, Hangge PT, Albadawi H, Oklu R. Social medicine: Twitter in healthcare. J Clin Med. May 28, 2018;7(6):121. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  2. Mishori R, Levy B, Donvan B. Twitter use at a family medicine conference: analyzing #STFM13. Fam Med. Sep 2014;46(8):608-614. [Medline]
  3. Pemmaraju N, Mesa RA, Majhail NS, Thompson MA. The use and impact of Twitter at medical conferences: best practices and Twitter etiquette. Semin Hematol. Oct 2017;54(4):184-188. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  4. Cohen D, Allen TC, Balci S, et al. #InSituPathologists: how the #USCAP2015 meeting went viral on Twitter and founded the social media movement for the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology. Mod Pathol. Feb 2017;30(2):160-168. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  5. Wilkinson SE, Basto MY, Perovic G, Lawrentschuk N, Murphy DG. The social media revolution is changing the conference experience: analytics and trends from eight international meetings. BJU Int. May 2015;115(5):839-846. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  6. Mackenzie G, Søreide K, Polom K, et al. Beyond the hashtag - an exploration of tweeting and replies at the European Society of Surgical Oncology 39th clinical conference (ESSO39). Eur J Surg Oncol. Jul 2020;46(7):1377-1383. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  7. Chaudhry A, Glodé LM, Gillman M, Miller RS. Trends in Twitter use by physicians at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting, 2010 and 2011. J Oncol Pract. May 2012;8(3):173-178. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  8. Bilir E, Ahmed W, Kacperczyk-Bartnik J, et al. Social media ambassadors and collaboration with OncoAlert: a European Network of Young Gynae Oncologists study of comparative Twitter analysis of #ESGO2021 and #ESGO2022. Int J Gynecol Cancer. Jun 5, 2023;33(6):964-970. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  9. Uwins C, Yilmaz Y, Bilir E, Bhandoria GP. World Gynecologic Oncology Day: the use of Twitter to raise awareness of gynecologic cancers. AJOG Glob Rep. Jul 21, 2022;2(3):100079. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  10. Beste NC, Davis X, Kloeckner R, et al. Comprehensive analysis of Twitter usage during a major medical conference held virtually versus in-person. Insights Imaging. Jan 20, 2022;13(1):8. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  11. Pemmaraju N, Thompson MA, Mesa RA, Desai T. Analysis of the use and impact of Twitter during American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meetings from 2011 to 2016: focus on advanced metrics and user trends. J Oncol Pract. Jul 2017;13(7):e623-e631. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  12. Ahmed W, Lugovic S. Social media analytics: analysis and visualisation of news diffusion using NodeXL. Online Inf Rev. Feb 11, 2019;43(1):149-160. [CrossRef]
  13. Ahmed W, Marin-Gomez X, Vidal-Alaball J. Contextualising the 2019 e-cigarette health scare: insights from Twitter. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Mar 26, 2020;17(7):2236. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  14. Ahmed W, Vidal-Alaball J, Lopez Segui F, Moreno-Sánchez PA. A social network analysis of tweets related to masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Nov 7, 2020;17(21):8235. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  15. Morgan G, Choueiri TK, Patel R, Balaji K, Subbiah V. Impact of #ASCO Twitter impressions on the oncology community. J Clin Oncol. May 28, 2021;39(15_suppl):11039. [CrossRef]
  16. Kreps S, George J, Watson N, Cai G, Ding K. (Mis)information on digital platforms: quantitative and qualitative analysis of content from Twitter and Sina Weibo in the COVID-19 pandemic. JMIR Infodemiol. Feb 24, 2022;2(1):e31793. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  17. Katz MS, Utengen A, Anderson PF, et al. Disease-specific hashtags for online communication about cancer care. JAMA Oncol. Mar 2016;2(3):392-394. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  18. Monuszko KA, Fish LJ, Sparacio D, et al. Understanding the needs and perspectives of ovarian cancer patients when considering PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy: findings from two online community events. Gynecol Oncol Rep. Jul 2022;43:101050. [CrossRef] [Medline]


ASCO: American Society of Clinical Oncology
ESGO: European Society of Gynaecological Oncology


Edited by Taiane de Azevedo Cardoso; submitted 09.02.23; peer-reviewed by Zewei Zhang; final revised version received 03.07.24; accepted 10.07.24; published 14.08.24.

Copyright

© Geetu Bhandoria, Esra Bilir, Christina Uwins, Josep Vidal-Alaball, Aïna Fuster-Casanovas, Wasim Ahmed. Originally published in JMIR Medical Education (https://mededu.jmir.org), 14.8.2024.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Medical Education, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://mededu.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.