critique on a research article

How to Write an Article Critique Step-by-Step

Table of contents

• 1 What is an Article Critique Writing?
• 2 How to Critique an Article: The Main Steps
• 3 Article Critique Outline
• 4 Article Critique Formatting
• 5 How to Write a Journal Article Critique
• 6 How to Write a Research Article Critique
• 7 Research Methods in Article Critique Writing
• 8 Tips for writing an Article Critique

Do you know how to critique an article? If not, don’t worry – this guide will walk you through the writing process step-by-step. First, we’ll discuss what a research article critique is and its importance. Then, we’ll outline the key points to consider when critiquing a scientific article. Finally, we’ll provide a step-by-step guide on how to write an article critique including introduction, body and summary. Read more to get the main idea of crafting a critique paper.

What is an Article Critique Writing?

An article critique is a formal analysis and evaluation of a piece of writing. It is often written in response to a particular text but can also be a response to a book, a movie, or any other form of writing. There are many different types of review articles . Before writing an article critique, you should have an idea about each of them.

To start writing a good critique, you must first read the article thoroughly and examine and make sure you understand the article’s purpose. Then, you should outline the article’s key points and discuss how well they are presented. Next, you should offer your comments and opinions on the article, discussing whether you agree or disagree with the author’s points and subject. Finally, concluding your critique with a brief summary of your thoughts on the article would be best. Ensure that the general audience understands your perspective on the piece.

How to Critique an Article: The Main Steps

If you are wondering “what is included in an article critique,” the answer is:

An article critique typically includes the following:

• A brief summary of the article .
• A critical evaluation of the article’s strengths and weaknesses.
• A conclusion.

When critiquing an article, it is essential to critically read the piece and consider the author’s purpose and research strategies that the author chose. Next, provide a brief summary of the text, highlighting the author’s main points and ideas. Critique an article using formal language and relevant literature in the body paragraphs. Finally, describe the thesis statement, main idea, and author’s interpretations in your language using specific examples from the article. It is also vital to discuss the statistical methods used and whether they are appropriate for the research question. Make notes of the points you think need to be discussed, and also do a literature review from where the author ground their research. Offer your perspective on the article and whether it is well-written. Finally, provide background information on the topic if necessary.

When you are reading an article, it is vital to take notes and critique the text to understand it fully and to be able to use the information in it. Here are the main steps for critiquing an article:

• Read the piece thoroughly, taking notes as you go. Ensure you understand the main points and the author’s argument.
• Take a look at the author’s perspective. Is it powerful? Does it back up the author’s point of view?
• Carefully examine the article’s tone. Is it biased? Are you being persuaded by the author in any way?
• Look at the structure. Is it well organized? Does it make sense?
• Consider the writing style. Is it clear? Is it well-written?
• Evaluate the sources the author uses. Are they credible?
• Think about your own opinion. With what do you concur or disagree? Why?

Article Critique Outline

When assigned an article critique, your instructor asks you to read and analyze it and provide feedback. A specific format is typically followed when writing an article critique.

An article critique usually has three sections: an introduction, a body, and a conclusion.

• The introduction of your article critique should have a summary and key points.
• The critique’s main body should thoroughly evaluate the piece, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses, and state your ideas and opinions with supporting evidence.
• The conclusion should restate your research and describe your opinion.

You should provide your analysis rather than simply agreeing or disagreeing with the author. When writing an article review , it is essential to be objective and critical. Describe your perspective on the subject and create an article review summary. Be sure to use proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation, write it in the third person, and cite your sources.

Article Critique Formatting

When writing an article critique, you should follow a few formatting guidelines. The importance of using a proper format is to make your review clear and easy to read.

Make sure to use double spacing throughout your critique. It will make it easy to understand and read for your instructor.

Indent each new paragraph. It will help to separate your critique into different sections visually.

Use headings to organize your critique. Your introduction, body, and conclusion should stand out. It will make it easy for your instructor to follow your thoughts.

Use standard fonts, such as Times New Roman or Arial. It will make your critique easy to read.

Use 12-point font size. It will ensure that your critique is easy to read.

How to Write a Journal Article Critique

When critiquing a journal article, there are a few key points to keep in mind:

• Good critiques should be objective, meaning that the author’s ideas and arguments should be evaluated without personal bias.
• Critiques should be critical, meaning that all aspects of the article should be examined, including the author’s introduction, main ideas, and discussion.
• Critiques should be informative, providing the reader with a clear understanding of the article’s strengths and weaknesses.

When critiquing a research article, evaluating the author’s argument and the evidence they present is important. The author should state their thesis or the main point in the introductory paragraph. You should explain the article’s main ideas and evaluate the evidence critically. In the discussion section, the author should explain the implications of their findings and suggest future research.

It is also essential to keep a critical eye when reading scientific articles. In order to be credible, the scientific article must be based on evidence and previous literature. The author’s argument should be well-supported by data and logical reasoning.

How to Write a Research Article Critique

When you are assigned a research article, the first thing you need to do is read the piece carefully. Make sure you understand the subject matter and the author’s chosen approach. Next, you need to assess the importance of the author’s work. What are the key findings, and how do they contribute to the field of research?

Finally, you need to provide a critical point-by-point analysis of the article. This should include discussing the research questions, the main findings, and the overall impression of the scientific piece. In conclusion, you should state whether the text is good or bad. Read more to get an idea about curating a research article critique. But if you are not confident, you can ask “ write my papers ” and hire a professional to craft a critique paper for you. Explore your options online and get high-quality work quickly.

However, test yourself and use the following tips to write a research article critique that is clear, concise, and properly formatted.

• Take notes while you read the text in its entirety. Right down each point you agree and disagree with.
• Write a thesis statement that concisely and clearly outlines the main points.
• Write a paragraph that introduces the article and provides context for the critique.
• Write a paragraph for each of the following points, summarizing the main points and providing your own analysis:
• The purpose of the study
• The research question or questions
• The methods used
• The outcomes
• The conclusions were drawn by the author(s)
• Mention the strengths and weaknesses of the piece in a separate paragraph.
• Write a conclusion that summarizes your thoughts about the article.
• Free unlimited checks
• All common file formats
• Accurate results
• Intuitive interface

Research Methods in Article Critique Writing

When writing an article critique, it is important to use research methods to support your arguments. There are a variety of research methods that you can use, and each has its strengths and weaknesses. In this text, we will discuss four of the most common research methods used in article critique writing: quantitative research, qualitative research, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis.

Quantitative research is a research method that uses numbers and statistics to analyze data. This type of research is used to test hypotheses or measure a treatment’s effects. Quantitative research is normally considered more reliable than qualitative research because it considers a large amount of information. But, it might be difficult to find enough data to complete it properly.

Qualitative research is a research method that uses words and interviews to analyze data. This type of research is used to understand people’s thoughts and feelings. Qualitative research is usually more reliable than quantitative research because it is less likely to be biased. Though it is more expensive and tedious.

Systematic reviews are a type of research that uses a set of rules to search for and analyze studies on a particular topic. Some think that systematic reviews are more reliable than other research methods because they use a rigorous process to find and analyze studies. However, they can be pricy and long to carry out.

Meta-analysis is a type of research that combines several studies’ results to understand a treatment’s overall effect better. Meta-analysis is generally considered one of the most reliable type of research because it uses data from several approved studies. Conversely, it involves a long and costly process.

Are you still struggling to understand the critique of an article concept? You can contact an online review writing service to get help from skilled writers. You can get custom, and unique article reviews easily.

Tips for writing an Article Critique

It’s crucial to keep in mind that you’re not just sharing your opinion of the content when you write an article critique. Instead, you are providing a critical analysis, looking at its strengths and weaknesses. In order to write a compelling critique, you should follow these tips: Take note carefully of the essential elements as you read it.

• Make sure that you understand the thesis statement.
• Write down your thoughts, including strengths and weaknesses.
• Use evidence from to support your points.
• Create a clear and concise critique, making sure to avoid giving your opinion.

It is important to be clear and concise when creating an article critique. You should avoid giving your opinion and instead focus on providing a critical analysis. You should also use evidence from the article to support your points.

Readers also enjoyed

WHY WAIT? PLACE AN ORDER RIGHT NOW!

Just fill out the form, press the button, and have no worries!

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.

• All eBooks & Audiobooks
• Academic eBook Collection
• Home Grown eBook Collection
• Off-Campus Access
• Literature Resource Center
• Opposing Viewpoints
• ProQuest Central
• Course Guides
• Citing Sources
• Library Research
• Websites by Topic
• Book-a-Librarian
• Research Tutorials
• Use the Catalog
• Use Databases
• Use Films on Demand
• Use Home Grown eBooks
• Use NC LIVE
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary vs. Secondary
• Scholarly vs. Popular
• Make an Appointment
• Writing Tools
• Annotated Bibliographies
• Summaries, Reviews & Critiques
• Writing Center

Service Alert

Article Summaries, Reviews & Critiques

• Writing an article SUMMARY
• Writing an article REVIEW

Writing an article CRITIQUE

• Citing Sources This link opens in a new window
• About RCC Library

Text: 336-308-8801

Email: [email protected]

Call: 336-633-0204

Schedule: Book-a-Librarian

Like us on Facebook

Links on this guide may go to external web sites not connected with Randolph Community College. Their inclusion is not an endorsement by Randolph Community College and the College is not responsible for the accuracy of their content or the security of their site.

A critique asks you to evaluate an article and the author’s argument. You will need to look critically at what the author is claiming, evaluate the research methods, and look for possible problems with, or applications of, the researcher’s claims.

Introduction

Give an overview of the author’s main points and how the author supports those points. Explain what the author found and describe the process they used to arrive at this conclusion.

Body Paragraphs

Interpret the information from the article:

• Does the author review previous studies? Is current and relevant research used?
• What type of research was used – empirical studies, anecdotal material, or personal observations?
• Was the sample too small to generalize from?
• Was the participant group lacking in diversity (race, gender, age, education, socioeconomic status, etc.)
• For instance, volunteers gathered at a health food store might have different attitudes about nutrition than the population at large.
• How useful does this work seem to you? How does the author suggest the findings could be applied and how do you believe they could be applied?
• How could the study have been improved in your opinion?
• Does the author appear to have any biases (related to gender, race, class, or politics)?
• Is the writing clear and easy to follow? Does the author’s tone add to or detract from the article?
• How useful are the visuals (such as tables, charts, maps, photographs) included, if any? How do they help to illustrate the argument? Are they confusing or hard to read?
• What further research might be conducted on this subject?

Try to synthesize the pieces of your critique to emphasize your own main points about the author’s work, relating the researcher’s work to your own knowledge or to topics being discussed in your course.

From the Center for Academic Excellence (opens in a new window), University of Saint Joseph Connecticut

Additional Resources

All links open in a new window.

Writing an Article Critique (from The University of Arizona Global Campus Writing Center)

How to Critique an Article (from Essaypro.com)

How to Write an Article Critique (from EliteEditing.com.au)

• << Previous: Writing an article REVIEW
• Next: Citing Sources >>
• Last Updated: Mar 15, 2024 9:32 AM
• URL: https://libguides.randolph.edu/summaries

SPH Writing Support Services

• Appointment System
• ESL Conversation Group
• Mini-Courses
• Thesis/Dissertation Writing Group
• Career Writing
• Citing Sources
• Critiquing Research Articles
• Project Planning for the Beginner This link opens in a new window
• Grant Writing
• Publishing in the Sciences
• Systematic Review Overview
• Systematic Review Resources This link opens in a new window
• Writing Across Borders / Writing Across the Curriculum
• Conducting an article critique for a quantitative research study: Perspectives for doctoral students and other novice readers (Vance et al.)
• Critique Process (Boswell & Cannon)
• The experience of critiquing published research: Learning from the student and researcher perspective (Knowles & Gray)
• A guide to critiquing a research paper. Methodological appraisal of a paper on nurses in abortion care (Lipp & Fothergill)
• Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: Quantitative research (Coughlan et al.)
• Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 2: Qualitative research (Coughlan et al.)

Guidelines:

• Critiquing Research Articles (Flinders University)
• Framework for How to Read and Critique a Research Study (American Nurses Association)
• How to Critique a Journal Article (UIS)
• How to Critique a Research Paper (University of Michigan)
• How to Write an Article Critique
• Research Article Critique Form
• Writing a Critique or Review of a Research Article (University of Calgary)

Presentations:

• The Critique Process: Reviewing and Critiquing Research
• Writing a Critique
• << Previous: Citing Sources
• Next: Project Planning for the Beginner >>
• Last Updated: Apr 30, 2024 12:52 PM
• URL: https://libguides.sph.uth.tmc.edu/writing_support_services

You are using an outdated browser

Unfortunately Ausmed.com does not support your browser. Please upgrade your browser to continue.

How to Critique a Research Article

Published: 01 October 2023

Let's briefly examine some basic pointers on how to perform a literature review.

If you've managed to get your hands on peer-reviewed articles, then you may wonder why it is necessary for you to perform your own article critique. Surely the article will be of good quality if it has made it through the peer-review process?

Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

Publication bias can occur when editors only accept manuscripts that have a bearing on the direction of their own research, or reject manuscripts with negative findings. Additionally,  not all peer reviewers have expert knowledge on certain subject matters , which can introduce bias and sometimes a conflict of interest.

Performing your own critical analysis of an article allows you to consider its value to you and to your workplace.

Critical evaluation is defined as a systematic way of considering the truthfulness of a piece of research, its results and how relevant and applicable they are.

How to Critique

It can be a little overwhelming trying to critique an article when you're not sure where to start. Considering the article under the following headings may be of some use:

Title of Study/Research

You may be a better judge of this after reading the article, but the title should succinctly reflect the content of the work, stimulating readers' interest.

Three to six keywords that encapsulate the main topics of the research will have been drawn from the body of the article.

Introduction

This should include:

• Evidence of a literature review that is relevant and recent, critically appraising other works rather than merely describing them
• Background information on the study to orientate the reader to the problem
• Hypothesis or aims of the study
• Rationale for the study that justifies its need, i.e. to explore an un-investigated gap in the literature.

Materials and Methods

Similar to a recipe, the description of materials and methods will allow others to replicate the study elsewhere if needed. It should both contain and justify the exact specifications of selection criteria, sample size, response rate and any statistics used. This will demonstrate how the study is capable of achieving its aims. Things to consider in this section are:

• What sort of sampling technique and size was used?
• What proportion of the eligible sample participated? (e.g. '553 responded to a survey sent to 750 medical technologists'
• Were all eligible groups sampled? (e.g. was the survey sent only in English?)
• What were the strengths and weaknesses of the study?
• Were there threats to the reliability and validity of the study, and were these controlled for?
• Were there any obvious biases?
• If a trial was undertaken, was it randomised, case-controlled, blinded or double-blinded?

Results should be statistically analysed and presented in a way that an average reader of the journal will understand. Graphs and tables should be clear and promote clarity of the text. Consider whether:

• There were any major omissions in the results, which could indicate bias
• Percentages have been used to disguise small sample sizes
• The data generated is consistent with the data collected.

Negative results are just as relevant as research that produces positive results (but, as mentioned previously, may be omitted in publication due to editorial bias).

This should show insight into the meaning and significance of the research findings. It should not introduce any new material but should address how the aims of the study have been met. The discussion should use previous research work and theoretical concepts as the context in which the new study can be interpreted. Any limitations of the study, including bias, should be clearly presented. You will need to evaluate whether the author has clearly interpreted the results of the study, or whether the results could be interpreted another way.

Conclusions

These should be clearly stated and will only be valid if the study was reliable, valid and used a representative sample size. There may also be recommendations for further research.

These should be relevant to the study, be up-to-date, and should provide a comprehensive list of citations within the text.

Final Thoughts

Undertaking a critique of a research article may seem challenging at first, but will help you to evaluate whether the article has relevance to your own practice and workplace. Reading a single article can act as a springboard into researching the topic more widely, and aids in ensuring your nursing practice remains current and is supported by existing literature.

• Marshall, G 2005, ‘Critiquing a Research Article’, Radiography , vol. 11, no. 1, viewed 2 October 2023, https://www.radiographyonline.com/article/S1078-8174(04)00119-1/fulltext

Sarah Vogel View profile

Help and feedback, publications.

Ausmed Education is a Trusted Information Partner of Healthdirect Australia. Verify here .

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How to Write an Article Critique

Tips for Writing a Psychology Critique Paper

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Emily is a board-certified science editor who has worked with top digital publishing brands like Voices for Biodiversity, Study.com, GoodTherapy, Vox, and Verywell.

Cultura RM / Gu Cultura / Getty Images

• Steps for Writing a Critique

Evaluating the Article

• How to Write It
• Helpful Tips

An article critique involves critically analyzing a written work to assess its strengths and flaws. If you need to write an article critique, you will need to describe the article, analyze its contents, interpret its meaning, and make an overall assessment of the importance of the work.

Critique papers require students to conduct a critical analysis of another piece of writing, often a book, journal article, or essay . No matter your major, you will probably be expected to write a critique paper at some point.

For psychology students, critiquing a professional paper is a great way to learn more about psychology articles, writing, and the research process itself. Students will analyze how researchers conduct experiments, interpret results, and discuss the impact of the results.

At a Glance

An article critique involves making a critical assessment of a single work. This is often an article, but it might also be a book or other written source. It summarizes the contents of the article and then evaluates both the strengths and weaknesses of the piece. Knowing how to write an article critique can help you learn how to evaluate sources with a discerning eye.

Steps for Writing an Effective Article Critique

While these tips are designed to help students write a psychology critique paper, many of the same principles apply to writing article critiques in other subject areas.

Your first step should always be a thorough read-through of the material you will be analyzing and critiquing. It needs to be more than just a casual skim read. It should be in-depth with an eye toward key elements.

To write an article critique, you should:

• Read the article , noting your first impressions, questions, thoughts, and observations
• Describe the contents of the article in your own words, focusing on the main themes or ideas
• Interpret the meaning of the article and its overall importance
• Critically evaluate the contents of the article, including any strong points as well as potential weaknesses

The following guidelines can help you assess the article you are reading and make better sense of the material.

Read the Introduction Section of the Article

Start by reading the introduction . Think about how this part of the article sets up the main body and how it helps you get a background on the topic.

• Is the hypothesis clearly stated?
• Is the necessary background information and previous research described in the introduction?

In addition to answering these basic questions, note other information provided in the introduction and any questions you have.

Read the Methods Section of the Article

Is the study procedure clearly outlined in the methods section ? Can you determine which variables the researchers are measuring?

Remember to jot down questions and thoughts that come to mind as you are reading. Once you have finished reading the paper, you can then refer back to your initial questions and see which ones remain unanswered.

Read the Results Section of the Article

Are all tables and graphs clearly labeled in the results section ? Do researchers provide enough statistical information? Did the researchers collect all of the data needed to measure the variables in question?

Make a note of any questions or information that does not seem to make sense. You can refer back to these questions later as you are writing your final critique.

Read the Discussion Section of the Article

Experts suggest that it is helpful to take notes while reading through sections of the paper you are evaluating. Ask yourself key questions:

• How do the researchers interpret the results of the study?
• Did the results support their hypothesis?
• Do the conclusions drawn by the researchers seem reasonable?

The discussion section offers students an excellent opportunity to take a position. If you agree with the researcher's conclusions, explain why. If you feel the researchers are incorrect or off-base, point out problems with the conclusions and suggest alternative explanations.

Another alternative is to point out questions the researchers failed to answer in the discussion section.

Begin Writing Your Own Critique of the Paper

Once you have read the article, compile your notes and develop an outline that you can follow as you write your psychology critique paper. Here's a guide that will walk you through how to structure your critique paper.

Introduction

Begin your paper by describing the journal article and authors you are critiquing. Provide the main hypothesis (or thesis) of the paper. Explain why you think the information is relevant.

Thesis Statement

The final part of your introduction should include your thesis statement. Your thesis statement is the main idea of your critique. Your thesis should briefly sum up the main points of your critique.

Article Summary

Provide a brief summary of the article. Outline the main points, results, and discussion.

When describing the study or paper, experts suggest that you include a summary of the questions being addressed, study participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design.

Don't get bogged down by your summary. This section should highlight the main points of the article you are critiquing. Don't feel obligated to summarize each little detail of the main paper. Focus on giving the reader an overall idea of the article's content.

Your Analysis

In this section, you will provide your critique of the article. Describe any problems you had with the author's premise, methods, or conclusions. You might focus your critique on problems with the author's argument, presentation, information, and alternatives that have been overlooked.

When evaluating a study, summarize the main findings—including the strength of evidence for each main outcome—and consider their relevance to key demographic groups.  

Organize your paper carefully. Be careful not to jump around from one argument to the next. Arguing one point at a time ensures that your paper flows well and is easy to read.

Your critique paper should end with an overview of the article's argument, your conclusions, and your reactions.

More Tips When Writing an Article Critique

• As you are editing your paper, utilize a style guide published by the American Psychological Association, such as the official Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association .
• Reading scientific articles can be challenging at first. Remember that this is a skill that takes time to learn but that your skills will become stronger the more that you read.
• Take a rough draft of your paper to your school's writing lab for additional feedback and use your university library's resources.

What This Means For You

Being able to write a solid article critique is a useful academic skill. While it can be challenging, start by breaking down the sections of the paper, noting your initial thoughts and questions. Then structure your own critique so that you present a summary followed by your evaluation. In your critique, include the strengths and the weaknesses of the article.

Archibald D, Martimianakis MA. Writing, reading, and critiquing reviews .  Can Med Educ J . 2021;12(3):1-7. doi:10.36834/cmej.72945

Pautasso M. Ten simple rules for writing a literature review . PLoS Comput Biol . 2013;9(7):e1003149. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149

Gülpınar Ö, Güçlü AG. How to write a review article?   Turk J Urol . 2013;39(Suppl 1):44–48. doi:10.5152/tud.2013.054

Erol A. Basics of writing review articles .  Noro Psikiyatr Ars . 2022;59(1):1-2. doi:10.29399/npa.28093

American Psychological Association.  Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association  (7th ed.). Washington DC: The American Psychological Association; 2019.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Writing Critiques

Writing a critique involves more than pointing out mistakes. It involves conducting a systematic analysis of a scholarly article or book and then writing a fair and reasonable description of its strengths and weaknesses. Several scholarly journals have published guides for critiquing other people’s work in their academic area. Search for a  “manuscript reviewer guide” in your own discipline to guide your analysis of the content. Use this handout as an orientation to the audience and purpose of different types of critiques and to the linguistic strategies appropriate to all of them.

Types of critique

Article or book review assignment in an academic class.

Text: Article or book that has already been published Audience: Professors Purpose:

• to demonstrate your skills for close reading and analysis
• to show that you understand key concepts in your field
• to learn how to review a manuscript for your future professional work

Published book review

Text: Book that has already been published Audience: Disciplinary colleagues Purpose:

• to describe the book’s contents
• to summarize the book’s strengths and weaknesses
• to provide a reliable recommendation to read (or not read) the book

Manuscript review

Text: Manuscript that has been submitted but has not been published yet Audience: Journal editor and manuscript authors Purpose:

• to provide the editor with an evaluation of the manuscript
• to recommend to the editor that the article be published, revised, or rejected
• to provide the authors with constructive feedback and reasonable suggestions for revision

Language strategies for critiquing

For each type of critique, it’s important to state your praise, criticism, and suggestions politely, but with the appropriate level of strength. The following language structures should help you achieve this challenging task.

Offering Praise and Criticism

A strategy called “hedging” will help you express praise or criticism with varying levels of strength. It will also help you express varying levels of certainty in your own assertions. Grammatical structures used for hedging include:

Modal verbs Using modal verbs (could, can, may, might, etc.) allows you to soften an absolute statement. Compare:

This text is inappropriate for graduate students who are new to the field. This text may be inappropriate for graduate students who are new to the field.

Qualifying adjectives and adverbs Using qualifying adjectives and adverbs (possible, likely, possibly, somewhat, etc.) allows you to introduce a level of probability into your comments. Compare:

Readers will find the theoretical model difficult to understand. Some readers will find the theoretical model difficult to understand. Some readers will probably find the theoretical model somewhat difficult to understand completely.

Note: You can see from the last example that too many qualifiers makes the idea sound undesirably weak.

Tentative verbs Using tentative verbs (seems, indicates, suggests, etc.) also allows you to soften an absolute statement. Compare:

This omission shows that the authors are not aware of the current literature. This omission indicates that the authors are not aware of the current literature. This omission seems to suggest that the authors are not aware of the current literature.

Offering suggestions

Whether you are critiquing a published or unpublished text, you are expected to point out problems and suggest solutions. If you are critiquing an unpublished manuscript, the author can use your suggestions to revise. Your suggestions have the potential to become real actions. If you are critiquing a published text, the author cannot revise, so your suggestions are purely hypothetical. These two situations require slightly different grammar.

Unpublished manuscripts: “would be X if they did Y” Reviewers commonly point out weakness by pointing toward improvement. For instance, if the problem is “unclear methodology,” reviewers may write that “the methodology would be more clear if …” plus a suggestion. If the author can use the suggestions to revise, the grammar is “X would be better if the authors did Y” (would be + simple past suggestion).

The tables would be clearer if the authors highlighted the key results. The discussion would be more persuasive if the authors accounted for the discrepancies in the data.

Published manuscripts: “would have been X if they had done Y” If the authors cannot revise based on your suggestions, use the past unreal conditional form “X would have been better if the authors had done Y” (would have been + past perfect suggestion).

The tables would have been clearer if the authors had highlighted key results. The discussion would have been more persuasive if the authors had accounted for discrepancies in the data.

Note: For more information on conditional structures, see our Conditionals handout .

Make a Gift

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Can Med Educ J
• v.12(3); 2021 Jun

Writing, reading, and critiquing reviews

Écrire, lire et revue critique, douglas archibald.

1 University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada;

Maria Athina Martimianakis

2 University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Why reviews matter

What do all authors of the CMEJ have in common? For that matter what do all health professions education scholars have in common? We all engage with literature. When you have an idea or question the first thing you do is find out what has been published on the topic of interest. Literature reviews are foundational to any study. They describe what is known about given topic and lead us to identify a knowledge gap to study. All reviews require authors to be able accurately summarize, synthesize, interpret and even critique the research literature. 1 , 2 In fact, for this editorial we have had to review the literature on reviews . Knowledge and evidence are expanding in our field of health professions education at an ever increasing rate and so to help keep pace, well written reviews are essential. Though reviews may be difficult to write, they will always be read. In this editorial we survey the various forms review articles can take. As well we want to provide authors and reviewers at CMEJ with some guidance and resources to be able write and/or review a review article.

What are the types of reviews conducted in Health Professions Education?

Health professions education attracts scholars from across disciplines and professions. For this reason, there are numerous ways to conduct reviews and it is important to familiarize oneself with these different forms to be able to effectively situate your work and write a compelling rationale for choosing your review methodology. 1 , 2 To do this, authors must contend with an ever-increasing lexicon of review type articles. In 2009 Grant and colleagues conducted a typology of reviews to aid readers makes sense of the different review types, listing fourteen different ways of conducting reviews, not all of which are mutually exclusive. 3 Interestingly, in their typology they did not include narrative reviews which are often used by authors in health professions education. In Table 1 , we offer a short description of three common types of review articles submitted to CMEJ.

Three common types of review articles submitted to CMEJ

More recently, authors such as Greenhalgh 4 have drawn attention to the perceived hierarchy of systematic reviews over scoping and narrative reviews. Like Greenhalgh, 4 we argue that systematic reviews are not to be seen as the gold standard of all reviews. Instead, it is important to align the method of review to what the authors hope to achieve, and pursue the review rigorously, according to the tenets of the chosen review type. Sometimes it is helpful to read part of the literature on your topic before deciding on a methodology for organizing and assessing its usefulness. Importantly, whether you are conducting a review or reading reviews, appreciating the differences between different types of reviews can also help you weigh the author’s interpretation of their findings.

In the next section we summarize some general tips for conducting successful reviews.

How to write and review a review article

In 2016 David Cook wrote an editorial for Medical Education on tips for a great review article. 13 These tips are excellent suggestions for all types of articles you are considering to submit to the CMEJ. First, start with a clear question: focused or more general depending on the type of review you are conducting. Systematic reviews tend to address very focused questions often summarizing the evidence of your topic. Other types of reviews tend to have broader questions and are more exploratory in nature.

Following your question, choose an approach and plan your methods to match your question…just like you would for a research study. Fortunately, there are guidelines for many types of reviews. As Cook points out the most important consideration is to be sure that the methods you follow lead to a defensible answer to your review question. To help you prepare for a defensible answer there are many guides available. For systematic reviews consult PRISMA guidelines ; 13 for scoping reviews PRISMA-ScR ; 14 and SANRA 15 for narrative reviews. It is also important to explain to readers why you have chosen to conduct a review. You may be introducing a new way for addressing an old problem, drawing links across literatures, filling in gaps in our knowledge about a phenomenon or educational practice. Cook refers to this as setting the stage. Linking back to the literature is important. In systematic reviews for example, you must be clear in explaining how your review builds on existing literature and previous reviews. This is your opportunity to be critical. What are the gaps and limitations of previous reviews? So, how will your systematic review resolve the shortcomings of previous work? In other types of reviews, such as narrative reviews, its less about filling a specific knowledge gap, and more about generating new research topic areas, exposing blind spots in our thinking, or making creative new links across issues. Whatever, type of review paper you are working on, the next steps are ones that can be applied to any scholarly writing. Be clear and offer insight. What is your main message? A review is more than just listing studies or referencing literature on your topic. Lead your readers to a convincing message. Provide commentary and interpretation for the studies in your review that will help you to inform your conclusions. For systematic reviews, Cook’s final tip is most likely the most important– report completely. You need to explain all your methods and report enough detail that readers can verify the main findings of each study you review. The most common reasons CMEJ reviewers recommend to decline a review article is because authors do not follow these last tips. In these instances authors do not provide the readers with enough detail to substantiate their interpretations or the message is not clear. Our recommendation for writing a great review is to ensure you have followed the previous tips and to have colleagues read over your paper to ensure you have provided a clear, detailed description and interpretation.

Finally, we leave you with some resources to guide your review writing. 3 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 16 , 17 We look forward to seeing your future work. One thing is certain, a better appreciation of what different reviews provide to the field will contribute to more purposeful exploration of the literature and better manuscript writing in general.

In this issue we present many interesting and worthwhile papers, two of which are, in fact, reviews.

Major Contributions

A chance for reform: the environmental impact of travel for general surgery residency interviews by Fung et al. 18 estimated the CO 2 emissions associated with traveling for residency position interviews. Due to the high emissions levels (mean 1.82 tonnes per applicant), they called for the consideration of alternative options such as videoconference interviews.

Understanding community family medicine preceptors’ involvement in educational scholarship: perceptions, influencing factors and promising areas for action by Ward and team 19 identified barriers, enablers, and opportunities to grow educational scholarship at community-based teaching sites. They discovered a growing interest in educational scholarship among community-based family medicine preceptors and hope the identification of successful processes will be beneficial for other community-based Family Medicine preceptors.

Exploring the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical education: an international cross-sectional study of medical learners by Allison Brown and team 20 studied the impact of COVID-19 on medical learners around the world. There were different concerns depending on the levels of training, such as residents’ concerns with career timeline compared to trainees’ concerns with the quality of learning. Overall, the learners negatively perceived the disruption at all levels and geographic regions.

The impact of local health professions education grants: is it worth the investment? by Susan Humphrey-Murto and co-authors 21 considered factors that lead to the publication of studies supported by local medical education grants. They identified several factors associated with publication success, including previous oral or poster presentations. They hope their results will be valuable for Canadian centres with local grant programs.

Exploring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical learner wellness: a needs assessment for the development of learner wellness interventions by Stephana Cherak and team 22 studied learner-wellness in various training environments disrupted by the pandemic. They reported a negative impact on learner wellness at all stages of training. Their results can benefit the development of future wellness interventions.

Program directors’ reflections on national policy change in medical education: insights on decision-making, accreditation, and the CanMEDS framework by Dore, Bogie, et al. 23 invited program directors to reflect on the introduction of the CanMEDS framework into Canadian postgraduate medical education programs. Their survey revealed that while program directors (PDs) recognized the necessity of the accreditation process, they did not feel they had a voice when the change occurred. The authors concluded that collaborations with PDs would lead to more successful outcomes.

Experiential learning, collaboration and reflection: key ingredients in longitudinal faculty development by Laura Farrell and team 24 stressed several elements for effective longitudinal faculty development (LFD) initiatives. They found that participants benefited from a supportive and collaborative environment while trying to learn a new skill or concept.

Brief Reports

The effect of COVID-19 on medical students’ education and wellbeing: a cross-sectional survey by Stephanie Thibaudeau and team 25 assessed the impact of COVID-19 on medical students. They reported an overall perceived negative impact, including increased depressive symptoms, increased anxiety, and reduced quality of education.

In Do PGY-1 residents in Emergency Medicine have enough experiences in resuscitations and other clinical procedures to meet the requirements of a Competence by Design curriculum? Meshkat and co-authors 26 recorded the number of adult medical resuscitations and clinical procedures completed by PGY1 Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians in Emergency Medicine residents to compare them to the Competence by Design requirements. Their study underscored the importance of monitoring collection against pre-set targets. They concluded that residency program curricula should be regularly reviewed to allow for adequate clinical experiences.

Rehearsal simulation for antenatal consults by Anita Cheng and team 27 studied whether rehearsal simulation for antenatal consults helped residents prepare for difficult conversations with parents expecting complications with their baby before birth. They found that while rehearsal simulation improved residents’ confidence and communication techniques, it did not prepare them for unexpected parent responses.

Review Papers and Meta-Analyses

Peer support programs in the fields of medicine and nursing: a systematic search and narrative review by Haykal and co-authors 28 described and evaluated peer support programs in the medical field published in the literature. They found numerous diverse programs and concluded that including a variety of delivery methods to meet the needs of all participants is a key aspect for future peer-support initiatives.

Towards competency-based medical education in addictions psychiatry: a systematic review by Bahji et al. 6 identified addiction interventions to build competency for psychiatry residents and fellows. They found that current psychiatry entrustable professional activities need to be better identified and evaluated to ensure sustained competence in addictions.

Six ways to get a grip on leveraging the expertise of Instructional Design and Technology professionals by Chen and Kleinheksel 29 provided ways to improve technology implementation by clarifying the role that Instructional Design and Technology professionals can play in technology initiatives and technology-enhanced learning. They concluded that a strong collaboration is to the benefit of both the learners and their future patients.

In his article, Seven ways to get a grip on running a successful promotions process, 30 Simon Field provided guidelines for maximizing opportunities for successful promotion experiences. His seven tips included creating a rubric for both self-assessment of likeliness of success and adjudication by the committee.

Six ways to get a grip on your first health education leadership role by Stasiuk and Scott 31 provided tips for considering a health education leadership position. They advised readers to be intentional and methodical in accepting or rejecting positions.

Re-examining the value proposition for Competency-Based Medical Education by Dagnone and team 32 described the excitement and controversy surrounding the implementation of competency-based medical education (CBME) by Canadian postgraduate training programs. They proposed observing which elements of CBME had a positive impact on various outcomes.

You Should Try This

In their work, Interprofessional culinary education workshops at the University of Saskatchewan, Lieffers et al. 33 described the implementation of interprofessional culinary education workshops that were designed to provide health professions students with an experiential and cooperative learning experience while learning about important topics in nutrition. They reported an enthusiastic response and cooperation among students from different health professional programs.

In their article, Physiotherapist-led musculoskeletal education: an innovative approach to teach medical students musculoskeletal assessment techniques, Boulila and team 34 described the implementation of physiotherapist-led workshops, whether the workshops increased medical students’ musculoskeletal knowledge, and if they increased confidence in assessment techniques.

Instagram as a virtual art display for medical students by Karly Pippitt and team 35 used social media as a platform for showcasing artwork done by first-year medical students. They described this shift to online learning due to COVID-19. Using Instagram was cost-saving and widely accessible. They intend to continue with both online and in-person displays in the future.

Adapting clinical skills volunteer patient recruitment and retention during COVID-19 by Nazerali-Maitland et al. 36 proposed a SLIM-COVID framework as a solution to the problem of dwindling volunteer patients due to COVID-19. Their framework is intended to provide actionable solutions to recruit and engage volunteers in a challenging environment.

In Quick Response codes for virtual learner evaluation of teaching and attendance monitoring, Roxana Mo and co-authors 37 used Quick Response (QR) codes to monitor attendance and obtain evaluations for virtual teaching sessions. They found QR codes valuable for quick and simple feedback that could be used for many educational applications.

In Creation and implementation of the Ottawa Handbook of Emergency Medicine Kaitlin Endres and team 38 described the creation of a handbook they made as an academic resource for medical students as they shift to clerkship. It includes relevant content encountered in Emergency Medicine. While they intended it for medical students, they also see its value for nurses, paramedics, and other medical professionals.

Commentary and Opinions

The alarming situation of medical student mental health by D’Eon and team 39 appealed to medical education leaders to respond to the high numbers of mental health concerns among medical students. They urged leaders to address the underlying problems, such as the excessive demands of the curriculum.

In the shadows: medical student clinical observerships and career exploration in the face of COVID-19 by Law and co-authors 40 offered potential solutions to replace in-person shadowing that has been disrupted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. They hope the alternatives such as virtual shadowing will close the gap in learning caused by the pandemic.

Letters to the Editor

Canadian Federation of Medical Students' response to “ The alarming situation of medical student mental health” King et al. 41 on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Medical Students (CFMS) responded to the commentary by D’Eon and team 39 on medical students' mental health. King called upon the medical education community to join the CFMS in its commitment to improving medical student wellbeing.

Re: “Development of a medical education podcast in obstetrics and gynecology” 42 was written by Kirubarajan in response to the article by Development of a medical education podcast in obstetrics and gynecology by Black and team. 43 Kirubarajan applauded the development of the podcast to meet a need in medical education, and suggested potential future topics such as interventions to prevent learner burnout.

Response to “First year medical student experiences with a clinical skills seminar emphasizing sexual and gender minority population complexity” by Kumar and Hassan 44 acknowledged the previously published article by Biro et al. 45 that explored limitations in medical training for the LGBTQ2S community. However, Kumar and Hassen advocated for further progress and reform for medical training to address the health requirements for sexual and gender minorities.

In her letter, Journey to the unknown: road closed!, 46 Rosemary Pawliuk responded to the article, Journey into the unknown: considering the international medical graduate perspective on the road to Canadian residency during the COVID-19 pandemic, by Gutman et al. 47 Pawliuk agreed that international medical students (IMGs) do not have adequate formal representation when it comes to residency training decisions. Therefore, Pawliuk challenged health organizations to make changes to give a voice in decision-making to the organizations representing IMGs.

In Connections, 48 Sara Guzman created a digital painting to portray her approach to learning. Her image of a hand touching a neuron showed her desire to physically see and touch an active neuron in order to further understand the brain and its connections.

How to Critique an Article: Mastering the Article Evaluation Process

Did you know that approximately 4.6 billion pieces of content are produced every day? From news articles and blog posts to scholarly papers and social media updates, the digital landscape is flooded with information at an unprecedented rate. In this age of information overload, honing the skill of articles critique has never been more crucial. Whether you're seeking to bolster your academic prowess, stay well-informed, or improve your writing, mastering the art of article critique is a powerful tool to navigate the vast sea of information and discern the pearls of wisdom.

How to Critique an Article: Short Description

In this article, we will equip you with valuable tips and techniques to become an insightful evaluator of written content. We present a real-life article critique example to guide your learning process and help you develop your unique critique style. Additionally, we explore the key differences between critiquing scientific articles and journals. Whether you're a student, researcher, or avid reader, this guide will empower you to navigate the vast ocean of information with confidence and discernment. Still, have questions? Don't worry! We've got you covered with a helpful FAQ section to address any lingering doubts. Get ready to unleash your analytical prowess and uncover the true potential of every article that comes your way!

What Is an Article Critique: Understanding The Power of Evaluation

An article critique is a valuable skill that involves carefully analyzing and evaluating a written piece, such as a journal article, blog post, or news article. It goes beyond mere summarization and delves into the deeper layers of the content, examining its strengths, weaknesses, and overall effectiveness. Think of it as an engaging conversation with the author, where you provide constructive feedback and insights.

For instance, let's consider a scenario where you're critiquing a research paper on climate change. Instead of simply summarizing the findings, you would scrutinize the methodology, data interpretation, and potential biases, offering thoughtful observations to enrich the discussion. Through the process of writing an article critique, you develop a critical eye, honing your ability to appreciate well-crafted work while also identifying areas for improvement.

In the following sections, our ' write my paper ' experts will uncover valuable tips on and key points on how to write a stellar critique, so let's explore more!

Unveiling the Key Aims of Writing an Article Critique

Writing an article critique serves several essential purposes that go beyond a simple review or summary. When engaging in the art of critique, as when you learn how to write a review article , you embark on a journey of in-depth analysis, sharpening your critical thinking skills and contributing to the academic and intellectual discourse. Primarily, an article critique allows you to:

• Evaluate the Content : By critiquing an article, you delve into its content, structure, and arguments, assessing its credibility and relevance.
• Strengthen Your Critical Thinking : This practice hones your ability to identify strengths and weaknesses in written works, fostering a deeper understanding of complex topics and critical evaluation skills.
• Engage in Scholarly Dialogue : Your critique contributes to the ongoing academic conversation, offering valuable insights and thoughtful observations to the existing body of knowledge.
• Enhance Writing Skills : By analyzing and providing feedback, you develop a keen eye for effective writing techniques, benefiting your own writing endeavors.
• Promote Continuous Learning : Through the writing process, you continually refine your analytical abilities, becoming an avid and astute learner in the pursuit of knowledge.

How to Critique an Article: Steps to Follow

The process of crafting an article critique may seem overwhelming, especially when dealing with intricate academic writing. However, fear not, for it is more straightforward than it appears! To excel in this art, all you require is a clear starting point and the skill to align your critique with the complexities of the content. To help you on your journey, follow these 3 simple steps and unlock the potential to provide insightful evaluations:

Step 1: Read the Article

The first and most crucial step when wondering how to do an article critique is to thoroughly read and absorb its content. As you delve into the written piece, consider these valuable tips from our custom essay writer to make your reading process more effective:

• Take Notes : Keep a notebook or digital document handy while reading. Jot down key points, noteworthy arguments, and any questions or observations that arise.
• Annotate the Text : Underline or highlight significant passages, quotes, or sections that stand out to you. Use different colors to differentiate between positive aspects and areas that may need improvement.
• Consider the Author's Purpose : Reflect on the author's main critical point and the intended audience. Much like an explanatory essay , evaluate how effectively the article conveys its message to the target readership.

Now, let's say you are writing an article critique on climate change. While reading, you come across a compelling quote from a renowned environmental scientist highlighting the urgency of addressing global warming. By taking notes and underlining this impactful quote, you can later incorporate it into your critique as evidence of the article's effectiveness in conveying the severity of the issue.

Step 2: Take Notes/ Make sketches

Once you've thoroughly read the article, it's time to capture your thoughts and observations by taking comprehensive notes or creating sketches. This step plays a crucial role in organizing your critique and ensuring you don't miss any critical points. Here's how to make the most out of this process:

• Highlight Key Arguments : Identify the main arguments presented by the author and highlight them in your notes. This will help you focus on the core ideas that shape the article.
• Record Supporting Evidence : Take note of any evidence, examples, or data the author uses to support their arguments. Assess the credibility and effectiveness of this evidence in bolstering their claims.
• Examine Structure and Flow : Pay attention to the article's structure and how each section flows into the next. Analyze how well the author transitions between ideas and whether the organization enhances or hinders the reader's understanding.
• Create Visual Aids : If you're a visual learner, consider using sketches or diagrams to map out the article's key points and their relationships. Visual representations can aid in better grasping the content's structure and complexities.

Step 3: Format Your Paper

Once you've gathered your notes and insights, it's time to give structure to your article critique. Proper formatting ensures your critique is organized, coherent, and easy to follow. Here are essential tips for formatting an article critique effectively:

• Introduction : Begin with a clear and engaging introduction that provides context for the article you are critiquing. Include the article's title, author's name, publication details, and a brief overview of the main theme or thesis.
• Thesis Statement : Present a strong and concise thesis statement that conveys your overall assessment of the article. Your thesis should reflect whether you found the article compelling, convincing, or in need of improvement.
• Body Paragraphs : Organize your critique into well-structured body paragraphs. Each paragraph should address a specific point or aspect of the article, supported by evidence and examples from your notes.
• Use Evidence : Back up your critique with evidence from the article itself. Quote relevant passages, cite examples, and reference data to strengthen your analysis and demonstrate your understanding of the article's content.
• Conclusion : Conclude your critique by summarizing your main points and reiterating your overall evaluation. Avoid introducing new arguments in the conclusion and instead provide a concise and compelling closing statement.
• Citation Style : If required, adhere to the specific citation style guidelines (e.g., APA, MLA) for in-text citations and the reference list. Properly crediting the original article and any additional sources you use in your critique is essential.

How to Critique a Journal Article: Mastering the Steps

So, you've been assigned the task of critiquing a journal article, and not sure where to start? Worry not, as we've prepared a comprehensive guide with different steps to help you navigate this process with confidence. Journal articles are esteemed sources of scholarly knowledge, and effectively critiquing them requires a systematic approach. Let's dive into the steps to expertly evaluate and analyze a journal article:

Step 1: Understanding the Research Context

Begin by familiarizing yourself with the broader research context in which the journal article is situated. Learn about the field, the topic's significance, and any previous relevant research. This foundational knowledge will provide a valuable backdrop for your journal article critique example.

Step 2: Evaluating the Article's Structure

Assess the article's overall structure and organization. Examine how the introduction sets the stage for the research and how the discussion flows logically from the methodology and results. A well-structured article enhances readability and comprehension.

Step 3: Analyzing the Research Methodology

Dive into the research methodology section, which outlines the approach used to gather and analyze data. Scrutinize the study's design, data collection methods, sample size, and any potential biases or limitations. Understanding the research process will enable you to gauge the article's reliability.

Step 4: Assessing the Data and Results

Examine the presentation of data and results in the article. Are the findings clear and effectively communicated? Look for any discrepancies between the data presented and the interpretations made by the authors.

Step 5: Analyzing the Discussion and Conclusions

Evaluate the discussion section, where the authors interpret their findings and place them in the broader context. Assess the soundness of their conclusions, considering whether they are adequately supported by the data.

Step 6: Considering Ethical Considerations

Reflect on any ethical considerations raised by the research. Assess whether the study respects the rights and privacy of participants and adheres to ethical guidelines.

Step 7: Identifying Strengths and Weaknesses

Identify the article's strengths, such as well-designed experiments, comprehensive, relevant literature reviews, or innovative approaches. Also, pinpoint any weaknesses, like gaps in the research, unclear explanations, or insufficient evidence.

Step 8: Offering Constructive Feedback

Provide constructive feedback to the authors, highlighting both positive aspects and areas for improvement for future research. Suggest ways to enhance the research methods, data analysis, or discussion to bolster its overall quality.

Step 9: Presenting Your Critique

Organize your critique into a well-structured paper, starting with an introduction that outlines the article's context and purpose. Develop a clear and focused thesis statement that conveys your assessment. Support your points with evidence from the article and other credible sources.

By following these steps on how to critique a journal article, you'll be well-equipped to craft a thoughtful and insightful piece, contributing to the scholarly discourse in your field of study!

Got an Article that Needs Some Serious Critiquing?

Don't sweat it! Our critique maestros are armed with wit, wisdom, and a dash of magic to whip that piece into shape.

An Article Critique: Journal Vs. Research

In the realm of academic writing, the terms 'journal article' and 'research paper' are often used interchangeably, which can lead to confusion about their differences. Understanding the distinctions between critiquing a research article and a journal piece is essential. Let's delve into the key characteristics that set apart a journal article from a research paper and explore how the critique process may differ for each:

Publication Scope:

• Journal Article: Presents focused and concise research findings or new insights within a specific subject area.
• Research Paper: Explores a broader range of topics and can cover extensive research on a particular subject.

Format and Structure:

• Journal Article: Follows a standardized format with sections such as abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion.
• Research Paper: May not adhere to a specific format and allows flexibility in organizing content based on the research scope.

Depth of Analysis:

• Journal Article: Provides a more concise and targeted analysis of the research topic or findings.
• Research Paper: Offers a more comprehensive and in-depth analysis, often including extensive literature reviews and data analyses.
• Journal Article: Typically shorter in length, ranging from a few pages to around 10-15 pages.
• Research Paper: Tends to be longer, spanning from 20 to several hundred pages, depending on the research complexity.

Publication Type:

• Journal Article: Published in academic journals after undergoing rigorous peer review.
• Research Paper: May be published as a standalone work or as part of a thesis, dissertation, or academic report.
• Journal Article: Targeted at academics, researchers, and professionals within the specific field of study.
• Research Paper: Can cater to a broader audience, including students, researchers, policymakers, and the general public.
• Journal Article: Primarily aimed at sharing new research findings, contributing to academic discourse, and advancing knowledge in the field.
• Research Paper: Focuses on comprehensive exploration and analysis of a research topic, aiming to make a substantial contribution to the body of knowledge.

Appreciating these differences becomes paramount when engaging in the critique of these two forms of scholarly publications, as they each demand a unique approach and thoughtful consideration of their distinctive attributes. And if you find yourself desiring a flawlessly crafted research article critique example, entrusting the task to professional writers is always an excellent option – you can easily order essay that meets your needs.

Article Critique Example

Our collection of essay samples offers a comprehensive and practical illustration of the critique process, granting you access to valuable insights.

Tips on How to Critique an Article

Critiquing an article requires a keen eye, critical thinking, and a thoughtful approach to evaluating its content. To enhance your article critique skills and provide insightful analyses, consider incorporating these five original and practical tips into your process:

1. Analyze the Author's Bias : Be mindful of potential biases in the article, whether they are political, cultural, or personal. Consider how these biases may influence the author's perspective and the presentation of information. Evaluating the presence of bias enables you to discern the objectivity and credibility of the article's arguments.

2. Examine the Supporting Evidence : Scrutinize the quality and relevance of the evidence used to support the article's claims. Look for well-researched data, credible sources, and up-to-date statistics. Assess how effectively the author integrates evidence to build a compelling case for their arguments.

3. Consider the Audience's Perspective : Put yourself in the shoes of the intended audience and assess how well the article communicates its ideas. Consider whether the language, tone, and level of complexity are appropriate for the target readership. A well-tailored article is more likely to engage and resonate with its audience.

4. Investigate the Research Methodology : If the article involves research or empirical data, delve into the methodology used to gather and analyze the information. Evaluate the soundness of the study design, sample size, and data collection methods. Understanding the research process adds depth to your critique.

5. Discuss the Implications and Application : Consider the broader implications of the article's findings or arguments. Discuss how the insights presented in the article could impact the field of study or have practical applications in real-world scenarios. Identifying the potential consequences of the article's content strengthens your critique's depth and relevance.

Wrapping Up

In a nutshell, article critique is an essential skill that helps us grow as critical thinkers and active participants in academia. Embrace the opportunity to analyze and offer constructive feedback, contributing to a brighter future of knowledge and understanding. Remember, each critique is a chance to engage with new ideas and expand our horizons. So, keep honing your critique skills and enjoy the journey of discovery in the world of academic exploration!

Tired of Ordinary Critiques?

Brace yourself for an extraordinary experience! Our critique geniuses are on standby, ready to unleash their extraordinary skills on your article!

What Steps Need to Be Taken in Writing an Article Critique?

What is the recommended length for an article critique.

is an expert in nursing and healthcare, with a strong background in history, law, and literature. Holding advanced degrees in nursing and public health, his analytical approach and comprehensive knowledge help students navigate complex topics. On EssayPro blog, Adam provides insightful articles on everything from historical analysis to the intricacies of healthcare policies. In his downtime, he enjoys historical documentaries and volunteering at local clinics.

Related Articles

Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: quantitative research

Affiliation.

• 1 School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Dublin, Trinity College, Dublin.
• PMID: 17577184
• DOI: 10.12968/bjon.2007.16.11.23681

When caring for patients, it is essential that nurses are using the current best practice. To determine what this is, nurses must be able to read research critically. But for many qualified and student nurses, the terminology used in research can be difficult to understand, thus making critical reading even more daunting. It is imperative in nursing that care has its foundations in sound research, and it is essential that all nurses have the ability to critically appraise research to identify what is best practice. This article is a step-by-step approach to critiquing quantitative research to help nurses demystify the process and decode the terminology.

Publication types

• Abstracting and Indexing
• Benchmarking
• Bibliographies as Topic
• Data Collection
• Data Interpretation, Statistical
• Diffusion of Innovation
• Guidelines as Topic
• Nursing Research / organization & administration*
• Reproducibility of Results
• Research Design / standards*

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Published on 5.6.2024 in Vol 26 (2024)

Examining the Effectiveness of Social Media for the Dissemination of Research Evidence for Health and Social Care Practitioners: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Authors of this article:

• Sarah Roberts-Lewis 1 , PhD   ; 
• Helen Baxter 2, 3 , PhD   ; 
• Gill Mein 4 , BSc   ; 
• Sophia Quirke-McFarlane 5 , MSc   ; 
• Fiona J Leggat 1 , PhD   ; 
• Hannah Garner 6 , BSc   ; 
• Martha Powell 3 , BSc   ; 
• Sarah White 1 , PhD   ; 
• Lindsay Bearne 1, 3 , PhD  

1 Population Health Research Institute, St George’s University of London, London, United Kingdom

2 Bristol Population Health Science Institute, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom

3 National Institute of Health and Care Research, London, United Kingdom

4 Faculty of Health, Social Care and Education, St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom

5 School of Psychology, University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom

6 Department of Physiotherapy, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom

Corresponding Author:

Sarah Roberts-Lewis, PhD

Population Health Research Institute

St George’s University of London

Cranmer Terrace

London, SW17 0RE

United Kingdom

Phone: 44 20 8725 0368

Email: [email protected]

Background: Social media use has potential to facilitate the rapid dissemination of research evidence to busy health and social care practitioners.

Objective: This study aims to quantitatively synthesize evidence of the between- and within-group effectiveness of social media for dissemination of research evidence to health and social care practitioners. It also compared effectiveness between different social media platforms, formats, and strategies.

Methods: We searched electronic databases for articles in English that were published between January 1, 2010, and January 10, 2023, and that evaluated social media interventions for disseminating research evidence to qualified, postregistration health and social care practitioners in measures of reach, engagement, direct dissemination, or impact. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were carried out by at least 2 independent reviewers. Meta-analyses of standardized pooled effects were carried out for between- and within-group effectiveness of social media and comparisons between platforms, formats, and strategies. Certainty of evidence for outcomes was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) framework.

Results: In total, 50 mixed-quality articles that were heterogeneous in design and outcome were included (n=9, 18% were randomized controlled trials [RCTs]). Reach (measured in number of practitioners, impressions, or post views) was reported in 26 studies. Engagement (measured in likes or post interactions) was evaluated in 21 studies. Direct dissemination (measured in link clicks, article views, downloads, or altmetric attention score) was analyzed in 23 studies (8 RCTs). Impact (measured in citations or measures of thinking and practice) was reported in 13 studies. Included studies almost universally indicated effects in favor of social media interventions, although effect sizes varied. Cumulative evidence indicated moderate certainty of large and moderate between-group effects of social media interventions on direct dissemination (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.88; P =.02) and impact (SMD 0.76; P <.001). After social media interventions, cumulative evidence showed moderate certainty of large within-group effects on reach (SMD 1.99; P <.001), engagement (SMD 3.74; P <.001), and direct dissemination (SMD 0.82; P =.004) and low certainty of a small within-group effect on impacting thinking or practice (SMD 0.45; P =.02). There was also evidence for the effectiveness of using multiple social media platforms (including Twitter, subsequently rebranded X; and Facebook), images (particularly infographics), and intensive social media strategies with frequent, daily posts and involving influential others. No included studies tested the dissemination of research evidence to social care practitioners.

Conclusions: Social media was effective for disseminating research evidence to health care practitioners. More intense social media campaigns using specific platforms, formats, and strategies may be more effective than less intense interventions. Implications include recommendations for effective dissemination of research evidence to health care practitioners and further RCTs in this field, particularly investigating the dissemination of social care research.

Trial Registration: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42022378793; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=378793

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/45684

Introduction

It is essential that health and social care practitioners access contemporary, high-quality research evidence to help them deliver the best evidence-based clinical care and improve patient outcomes [ 1 - 5 ]. Rapid dissemination, by active approaches using specific channels and planned strategies, is recommended [ 6 , 7 ].

Social media may facilitate rapid dissemination to busy practitioners, allowing them to access and interpret research evidence efficiently [ 8 - 10 ]. Because social media are widely used and not limited in space and time [ 8 , 11 ], they have the potential to overcome barriers to dissemination, including reaching practitioners with limited professional opportunities or time constraints and filtering the exponentially increasing volume of research evidence produced every year [ 9 , 12 - 14 ]. Currently, closed social media channels, such as private and invitation-only groups, are often used by practitioners for day-to-day communications, clinical information sharing, and targeted clinical education, whereas open social media channels that can be accessed by everybody are used for reputation development; public health education; and, increasingly, research dissemination [ 9 , 10 , 15 - 26 ].

However, the effectiveness of open social media for the dissemination of research evidence to health and social care practitioners is largely unknown [ 27 ]. Existing reviews have narratively synthesized potential uses, benefits and risks, similarities and differences, and qualitative experiences of social media or provided commentaries on the mechanisms of research dissemination by social media [ 10 , 22 , 23 , 28 ]. No reviews have conducted a meta-analysis to quantitatively test the effectiveness of social media for the dissemination of research evidence to health and social care practitioners. To inform evidence-based recommendations, the evidence for using social media to disseminate research evidence must be investigated.

The primary research question was as follows: “How effective is open social media as a way to disseminate research evidence to practitioners?” The objective of this systematic review was to quantitatively synthesize and meta-analyze evidence of the effectiveness of social media for the dissemination of research evidence to health and social care practitioners by evaluating both between-group comparisons of social media versus no social media and within-group comparisons of before-after social media campaigns. The social media platforms, formats, and strategies used were also identified, and their effectiveness was compared to understand the most effective social media intervention characteristics for the dissemination of research evidence to practitioners.

The protocol was registered on the International Register of Systematic Review (PROSPERO; CRD42022378793) and published a priori [ 29 ]. It was reported in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidance [ 30 ] ( Multimedia Appendix 1 ).

Eligibility Criteria

Articles published between January 1, 2010, and January 10, 2023, were eligible for inclusion if they investigated research evidence targeted at health and social care practitioners that was shared using open social media. Articles were included if they quantitatively compared social media versus no social media (either between-group comparisons or before-after social media within-group comparisons) or if they compared social media platforms, formats, or strategies. Eligible study designs included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), case-controlled comparisons, crossover, nonrandomized group comparisons, before-after comparisons, cohort comparisons, and case reports. Eligible outcomes of interest included reach, engagement, direct dissemination, and impact. Definitions of the eligibility criteria terms are shown in Textbox 1 .

Articles were not eligible for inclusion if they only compared social media effectiveness in terms of the topic or specialty of the research evidence–related social media post or posts. Excluded study designs included protocols, reviews, studies using only qualitative methods, opinion pieces, and conference abstracts with no linked full-text article. Articles were excluded if they preceded 2010 (refer to the protocol by Roberts-Lewis et al [ 29 ]), were not available in English, or did not feature research evidence–related social media of relevance to postregistration health or social care practitioners (eg, only targeting students, service users, or the public or featuring non–health and social care research topics). Articles were also excluded if the social media campaign was targeted at practitioners for purposes other than the dissemination of research evidence (eg, delivering multisource clinical education courses, organizational information, administrative tasks, practical peer support, day-to-day interpersonal clinical communication, professional identity, or reputation promotion). Finally, articles that did not provide sufficient quantitative empirical data on reach, engagement, direct dissemination, or impact were excluded.

Definitions

• Research evidence: this was defined as published, peer-reviewed empirical human health and social care research findings that have met the publication standards of their specialty, presented as an original research article (primary research), a group of original research articles identified and synthesized systematically (secondary research), or evidence drawn together for evidence-based guidelines or clinical recommendations. Where research evidence was posted on social media, it either included a direct link to an open-access article or research information that had been summarized in the form of abstracts, microblogs, blogs, press articles, infographics, or educational videos.
• Targeted: by this we mean research evidence or social media posts that were professionally relevant to health and social care practitioners. Evidence was eligible if it was produced specifically for practitioners or when evidence was relevant to practitioners but other audiences such as the public also had access.
• Practitioners: these were postregistration health and social care professionals, collectively or as individual professions including but not limited to nurses, doctors, social workers, midwives, pharmacists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, radiographers, and paramedics.
• Open social media: we defined open social media as internet-based social networking and media sharing platforms that allow any user to create and exchange user-generated content, making one-to-many posts and interacting by responding to others’ posts. Our definition did not include mass media press articles, wikis, and blogs with no or limited facility for user interactions. Our definition also did not include purely communication-based apps, fee-paying, or closed, invite-only social media groups that could not be freely joined by any interested user. However, both noninteractional and closed social media groups were considered within our definition if they were highlighted on, or accessible via, open social media.
• Platforms: these were defined as open social networking and media sharing sites and apps, including but not limited to Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, WeChat, Tumblr, TikTok, Reddit, Twitter (subsequently rebranded X), and LinkedIn.
• Formats: these were a variety of media types, including but not limited to text, illustrative pictures, visual abstracts, infographics, videos, and podcasts.
• Strategies: these were the ways in which research evidence–related social media posts were delivered, including but not limited to a schedule of open sharing to the entire forum (frequency and timing), influencer endorsement, @mentions and #tagging, accessible special interest groups (eg, journal clubs), and live social media events (eg, tweet chats).
• Reach: this was defined as the number of practitioners reached by research evidence–related social media post or posts (eg, those following the social media account or participating in a social media event) or the social media analytics including the number of impressions (the number of times a post appears on social media feeds), views (the number of times a post is opened from social media feeds), or accesses (the number of times a post is accessed in any other way, eg, via a search engine).
• Engagement: this was measured by the number of positive responses (ie, likes) or interactions (such as shares, comments, reposting, or new posts) generated by a research evidence–related social media post.
• Direct dissemination: this was measured by the number of times an original piece of research evidence was accessed (eg, by link click from a social media post), viewed (eg, on an HTML web page), downloaded (eg, as a PDF document) or the altmetric attention score accumulated by original research articles.
• Impact: this included two discrete subcategories for the purposes of this review—(1) academic impact, the number of citations received by an original research evidence article or the journal impact factor, and (2) practical impact, measures of practitioners’ changes in thinking or practice (eg, confidence, knowledge, or behavior change) after exposure to research evidence–related social media post or posts.

Information Sources

Six electronic databases were searched (MEDLINE [Ovid], PsycINFO [Ovid], CINAHL plus [EBSCO], and ERIC [EBSCO] as well as LISTA and OpenGrey). The date of the last search was January 10, 2023. Bibliographies of relevant reviews and included articles were searched for citations and PubMed, Elicit, and Google Scholar were used for reference harvesting.

Search Strategy

For full search strategies, refer to Multimedia Appendix 2 and the protocol by Roberts-Lewis et al [ 29 ]. Key search terms were grouped as follows:

• Practitioner groups, for example, health and social care staff and individual disciplines
• Research evidence, information, and knowledge
• Social media, network, web, sharing, and named platforms and formats
• Dissemination, reach, engagement, and impact
• Quantitative, evaluation, comparison, and named outcomes

Selection Process

Records from the electronic and citation searches were exported to EndNote Online (Clarivate) for deduplication and then imported to Rayyan software (Rayyan Systems) for title, abstract, and full-text screening.

Title and abstract screening were carried out by 2 independent reviewers (SRL and SQM). There was 92% agreement (κ=0.87) on eligibility decisions and 100% agreement after discussion.

Full-text screening was carried out by at least 2 of 5 independent reviewers (SRL, SQM, LB, HG, and FJL). There was 84% agreement (κ=0.83) on full-text inclusion decisions and 100% agreement after discussion.

Data Collection

Data from the included studies were extracted independently by at least 2 of 5 reviewers (see the Selection Process section) using a data extraction form developed a priori [ 29 ]. The accuracy of data extraction was confirmed by comparison between extraction forms, returning to the original article to resolve any disparity.

The variables collected were study characteristics including the number and description of subjects; social media platforms, formats, and strategies; study design; comparisons; and outcomes. For each outcome of interest, means, SDs, and sample sizes were extracted for each comparison. When these data were missing, they were calculated from other reported statistics using recommended methods [ 31 ], where possible.

For studies that reported multiple outcome measures, only outcomes of interest were collected (reach, engagement, direct dissemination, and impact). Different measures for the same outcome were prioritized for inclusion in meta-analyses according to the a priori protocol [ 29 ]. Subsequent additions were made to the prioritization order to account for heterogeneous data reported in the included studies; these included aggregated total interactions, other types of post interactions, and the measurement time frame according to the most common time frames for each outcome of interest ( Textbox 2 ).

Outcome and prioritizations

• Number of practitioners after 1 week
• (1) Impressions, (2) views, and (3) accesses after 1 month
• Number of positive responses (ie, likes) after 1 week
• Number of post interactions—(1) total interactions (including shares, comments, and other interactions); (2) shares; (3) comments; (4) new posts, and (5) other post interactions—after 1 month
• (1) Link clicks and (2) article views after 1 month
• Article downloads after 1 month
• Altmetric attention score after 1 month
• (1) Citations and (2) impact factor after 1 year
• Any measures of thinking or practice after any time frame

Risk of Bias Assessment

The 34-item (5-domain) Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool was used to rate the quality of the RCTs as lower risk of bias, some concerns, or higher risk of bias [ 32 ]. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (score range 0-9) was used to assess the risk of bias in nonrandomized designs [ 33 ]. A score of ≤3 was considered high risk of bias, scores between 4 and 6 were considered medium risk of bias, and a score of ≥7 was considered low risk of bias [ 33 ]. Risk of bias was assessed independently by at least 2 reviewers and data were checked for accuracy by a third reviewer.

Data Synthesis

The included studies were summarized narratively in text, tables, and figures. Quantitative comparisons were made using calculated standardized mean differences (SMDs), CIs, and P values for each comparison. SMD effect sizes were calculated using Hedges g to accommodate the heterogeneity of outcomes. Effect sizes of >0.8 were defined as large, ≥0.5 to 0.8 as moderate, and <0.5 as small [ 34 ]. Outcome effect sizes were presented as SMD, 95% CIs, z -test, and P value.

For outcomes where group means, SDs, and sample sizes were obtained from at least 2 studies, pooled effect sizes were calculated using random effects models in RevMan (version 5.3; The Cochrane Collaboration). The heterogeneity of pooled data was assessed using I 2 . Funnel plots were assessed visually for each meta-analysis to check for publication bias.

For pooled data with I 2 >75%, subgroup analyses were planned; however, these were not possible due to the heterogeneous characteristics of the social media interventions in the included studies or an insufficient number of studies to achieve ≥80% statistical power [ 35 ]. Therefore, studies were ordered according to effect size, and the common characteristics of social media strategies in the studies with the largest effect sizes were narratively synthesized. Although no sensitivity analysis was planned a priori, evidence from RCTs and studies with low risk of bias was given greater weighting in the narrative synthesis than nonrandomized studies and those with high risk of bias.

Certainty Assessment

For each outcome, the certainty of the evidence base was evaluated based on the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) approach [ 36 ] and categorized as high, moderate, low, or very low [ 37 , 38 ].

In total, 6461 records were identified, 555 full-text reports were screened, and 50 articles were included ( Figure 1 ).

Included Studies

A total of 50 studies published between 2013 and 2022 were included; 9 were RCTs [ 39 - 48 ]. In total, 26 studies included nonrandomized comparisons [ 49 - 74 ], 12 studies were before-after comparisons [ 75 - 86 ], and 3 were case studies [ 87 - 89 ]. A total of 10 studies included both between-group comparisons and before-after analyses [ 40 , 44 , 45 , 47 , 51 , 53 , 60 , 63 , 70 , 74 ]. For study descriptions, refer to Multimedia Appendix 3 [ 39 - 89 ].

A total of 36 studies investigated the impact of social media on journal articles, with samples ranging from a single journal article [ 88 ] to 15,078 articles from multiple journals [ 54 ]. In total, 8 studies focused on research blogs [ 40 , 76 , 87 ] and microblogs [ 47 , 49 , 57 , 82 , 85 ], 4 studies examined research conference social media posts and hashtags [ 71 , 74 , 86 , 89 ], 2 studies investigated clinical guidelines [ 60 , 63 ], and 1 study tested research-related posts linked to health care hashtags [ 62 ].

Half of the studies explored multiple social media platforms and the other half of the studies examined a single platform. Twitter was used in all but 1 study [ 85 ], Facebook was used in 23 studies [ 40 , 42 - 44 , 47 , 48 , 53 , 57 , 60 , 63 , 64 , 67 - 70 , 76 , 77 , 80 - 82 , 85 , 89 ], LinkedIn was used in 8 studies [ 40 , 48 , 60 , 63 , 64 , 68 , 87 , 89 ], Instagram was used in 6 studies [ 57 , 62 , 67 , 68 , 76 , 87 ], and YouTube was used in 5 studies [ 58 , 60 , 63 , 64 , 87 ], whereas TikTok [ 87 ], Weibo [ 39 ], Google+ [ 64 ], Tumblr [ 81 ], and Spotify [ 87 ] were each used in 1 study. The most common media formats examined were text posts, which usually included links and images. Journal clubs or tweet chats were included in 9 studies [ 51 , 60 , 62 , 74 , 75 , 77 , 78 , 80 , 81 ], and video media were used in 6 studies [ 52 , 60 , 62 , 63 , 73 , 78 ]. The social media campaign duration ranged from 1 hour [ 51 ] to 5.5 years [ 54 ].

Outcomes measurement duration ranged from 3 days [ 86 , 89 ] to 4 years [ 64 ]. Typically, outcomes were measured after 1 month [ 42 - 44 , 48 , 52 , 53 , 56 , 60 , 63 , 67 , 75 - 81 , 83 - 85 , 87 ] or 1 to 2 weeks [ 39 - 41 , 45 , 47 , 51 , 68 , 74 , 82 , 88 ]. Citations were measured after ≥1 year, except in 1 study that reported citations after 6 months [ 61 ].

Risk of Bias

In total, 5 RCTs had low risk of bias [ 39 , 41 - 43 , 45 , 46 ], 3 RCTs had some concerns [ 40 , 44 , 48 ], and 1 RCT had high risk of bias [ 47 ] ( Multimedia Appendix 3 ). The most common reasons for risk of bias included insufficient information provided about the allocation sequence, handling of missing data, or prioritization of multiple eligible outcome measurement time points. In total, 11 nonrandomized studies had low risk of bias [ 49 , 50 , 55 - 57 , 63 , 65 , 70 , 72 , 79 , 81 ]; 25 nonrandomized studies had moderate risk of bias [ 51 - 54 , 58 , 59 , 61 , 62 , 64 , 66 - 69 , 71 , 73 - 78 , 80 , 82 - 85 ]; and 5 nonrandomized studies had high risk of bias [ 60 , 86 - 89 ] ( Multimedia Appendix 3 ). The most common reasons for risk of bias included targeted selection of studies for social media sharing and incomplete reporting of data handling. Funnel plots did not indicate a high risk of publication bias in pooled data.

In total, reach was evaluated in 26 studies (2 RCTs [ 41 , 45 ]). A total of 10 studies evaluated reach by reporting the numbers of practitioners receiving posts [ 41 , 45 , 66 , 67 , 75 , 78 , 79 , 84 , 86 , 89 ]. In total, 23 studies evaluated reach using social media analytics (17 in impressions [ 41 , 45 , 49 , 51 , 53 , 56 , 57 , 66 , 68 , 73 , 75 , 78 , 83 , 85 , 86 , 88 , 89 ]; 6 in views [ 62 , 63 , 76 , 79 , 81 , 87 ]; and none by reporting accesses).

Effects of Social Media Compared to No Social Media on Reach

There were insufficient studies comparing the reach of social media interventions versus no social media for pooled data analyses.

Evidence from individual studies included 1 RCT [ 45 ] with a low risk of bias that found a large between-group effect on the number of physicians reached by tweeted articles in a coordinated campaign, including a team with 12 social media accounts, 4 articles tweeted per day, and @mentions of authors and relevant institutions, compared to not tweeted articles (112 cardiothoracic surgery research articles; SMD 4.03, 95% CI 3.37-4.68; P <.001). Similarly, 1 nonrandomized study [ 63 ] with a low risk of bias reported a large between-group effect on views in favor of YouTube videos marketed by paid social media advertising on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn, with relevant event hashtags, compared to video views in the absence of social media marketing (12 videos about tracheostomy safety; SMD 2.53, 95% CI 1.41-3.64; P <.001; Multimedia Appendix 3 ).

Within-Group Effects of Social Media on Reach

Pooled findings indicated large within-group effects on reach after social media interventions compared to before in both number of practitioners (SMD 2.03, 95% CI 0.97-3.10; P <.001; I 2 =53%; GRADE moderate) [ 75 , 78 , 79 , 84 ] and impressions or views (SMD 1.99, 95% CI 1.23-2.75; P <.001; I 2 =95%; GRADE moderate) [ 45 , 53 , 56 , 63 , 75 , 76 , 78 , 79 , 81 , 83 , 85 ]. The largest effects were reported in studies featuring social media marketing and scheduling tools [ 63 , 83 ] and multiple social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and Tumblr) [ 63 , 76 , 81 ]; at least 1 post per day [ 76 , 79 , 81 , 83 , 84 ], including regular blogs [ 76 , 79 , 81 ] or microblogs [ 85 ]; posts coordinated with established live journal clubs, relevant events, hashtags, and @mentions [ 45 , 63 , 75 , 78 , 83 ]; and campaigns lasting 6 months to 4.5 years [ 76 , 81 , 85 ]. Smaller effects were reported by studies featuring one-off or less well-established tweet chats or events [ 75 , 78 ], 1 to 2 posts per month [ 53 , 56 , 75 , 78 ], and campaigns using a single social media platform (Twitter) [ 56 , 75 , 78 , 79 ] ( Figure 2 [ 45 , 53 , 56 , 63 , 75 , 76 , 78 , 79 , 81 , 83 - 85 ]).

Between-Group Effects of Different Platforms, Formats, and Strategies on Reach

Pooled findings indicated a large between-group effect on impressions and views in favor of Twitter (vs Facebook and Instagram; SMD 1.87, 95% CI 1.54-2.21; P <.001; I 2 =0%; GRADE low) and Facebook (vs Instagram; SMD 1.19, 95% CI 0.64-1.75; P <.001; I 2 =46%; GRADE low) [ 57 , 68 ]. However, no effect was shown between platforms in the number of practitioners who were followers on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram [ 67 ] ( Multimedia Appendix 3 ).

Pooled findings showed a large effect on impressions in favor of posts with images, in particular, infographics, compared to no images (SMD 1.63, 95% CI 0.04-3.22; P =.04; I 2 =95%; GRADE low; Multimedia Appendix 3 ) [ 41 , 45 , 49 , 56 ].

Pooled findings indicated a large effect on reach in favor of strategies using social media influencers or organizations compared to using standard social media user accounts (SMD 1.02, 95% CI 0.04-1.99; P =.04; I 2 =100%; GRADE low) [ 66 , 73 ]. One RCT follow-up study [ 46 ] also reported that tweeting at 1 PM (EST, United States) generated the highest reach and tweeting at 9 PM generated the lowest reach to physicians ( Multimedia Appendix 3 ).

A total of 21 studies (including 3 RCTs [ 41 , 45 , 47 ]) evaluated engagement (6 studies examined likes [ 45 , 47 , 49 , 51 , 83 , 88 ]; 11 studies investigated total engagements, including shares, comments, and other interactions [ 41 , 45 , 49 , 51 , 53 , 54 , 67 , 71 - 73 , 78 ]; 7 studies assessed only post shares [ 47 , 49 , 52 , 56 , 68 , 83 , 84 ]; and 2 studies reported on other post interactions only [ 63 , 75 ]). No included studies evaluated comments or reposts alone.

Effects of Social Media Compared to No Social Media on Engagement

There were insufficient studies comparing the engagement of social media interventions versus no social media for pooled data analyses.

Evidence from individual studies included just 1 nonrandomized study [ 63 ] with a low risk of bias that reported a large between-group effect on interaction time spent watching YouTube videos marketed by paid social media advertising compared to video interaction time in the absence of social media marketing (12 videos about tracheostomy safety; SMD 2.36, 95% CI 1.27-3.44; P <.001).

Within-Group Effects of Social Media on Engagement

Pooled findings indicated large within-group effects on engagement after social media interventions compared to before. Effects were significant for post interactions (SMD 3.74, 95% CI 2.02-5.46; P <.001; I 2 =96%; GRADE moderate) [ 45 , 53 , 63 , 75 , 78 , 83 , 84 ] but not for likes (SMD 3.18, 95% CI –0.25 to 6.62; P =.07; I 2 =98%; GRADE low) [ 45 , 83 , 85 ]. The largest effects on engagement were evident in social media campaigns established over 3 to 18 months, usually featuring coordinated, paid social media strategies; daily posts; visually appealing formats; topical hashtags; and @mentions targeting relevant organizations, government resources, and events [ 53 , 63 , 83 - 85 ]. Large effects on engagement were also observed in studies featuring a series of live journal clubs [ 75 , 78 ]. Smaller effects of social media on engagement were reported by 1 RCT [ 45 ] that used a 14-day Twitter campaign ( Figure 3 [ 45 , 53 , 63 , 75 , 78 , 83 - 85 ]).

Between-Group Effects of Different Platforms, Formats, and Strategies on Engagement

Pooled findings indicated a large between-group effect on engagement in favor of Twitter (vs Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn; SMD 1.15, 95% CI 0.21-2.10; P =.02; I 2 =79%; GRADE low; Multimedia Appendix 3 ) [ 47 , 67 , 68 ].

Pooled findings showed large between-group effects on engagement in favor of posts with images compared to no images. Effects were significant for interactions (SMD 1.24, 95% CI 0.53-1.96; P <.001; I 2 =98%; GRADE low) but not for likes (SMD 0.87, 95% CI –0.40 to 2.14; P =.18; I 2 =88%; GRADE low; Multimedia Appendix 3 ) [ 41 , 45 , 49 , 52 , 56 , 72 ].

Pooled findings indicated a small effect on post interactions of social media strategies with participation by influential others (including patients, authors, and non–peer-reviewed news sources; SMD 0.26, 95% CI 0.13-0.39; P <.001; I 2 =82%; GRADE low) [ 54 , 71 , 73 ]. Evidence from individual studies also showed large effects of social media influencers with >1000 followers [ 52 ], morning and weekday posting [ 72 ], and hashtags [ 72 ] and a small effect of @mentions [ 52 ] ( Multimedia Appendix 3 ).

Direct Dissemination

In total, 23 studies (including 8 RCTs [ 39 - 45 , 48 ]) evaluated direct dissemination (10 in link clicks [ 41 , 45 , 49 , 51 , 53 , 56 , 73 , 79 , 80 , 83 ], 13 studies reported article views [ 39 , 40 , 42 - 44 , 48 , 63 , 69 , 70 , 74 , 81 , 84 , 87 ], 8 measured PDF downloads [ 40 , 44 , 48 , 50 , 63 , 69 , 79 , 81 ], and 9 assessed the altmetric score [ 44 , 45 , 51 , 69 , 74 , 77 , 79 , 83 , 87 ]).

Effects of Social Media Compared to No Social Media on Direct Dissemination

Pooled data showed large between-group effects of social media on direct dissemination. Effects were significant for link clicks or article views (SMD 0.88, 95% CI 0.15-1.62; P =.02; I 2 =95%; GRADE moderate) [ 39 , 40 , 42 , 43 , 45 , 48 ] and article downloads (SMD 1.25, 95% CI 0.86-1.65; P <.001; I 2 =0%; GRADE high) [ 40 , 48 , 50 ] but not for the altmetric attention score [ 45 , 74 ] (SMD 1.48, 95% CI –1.00 to 3.96; P =.24; I 2 =97%; GRADE low; Figure 4 [ 39 , 40 , 42 , 43 , 45 , 48 , 50 , 74 ]). Studies that reported the largest effects of social media on direct dissemination used campaigns including professional social media marketing and scheduling tools (Social Bro, Hootsuite, Sprinkler, and Spredfast); multiple posts per day; multiple platforms (Twitter, Weibo, Facebook, and LinkedIn); or multiple accounts on 1 platform, link, and blog [ 39 , 40 , 45 , 48 , 50 ]. The studies that showed the smallest effects of social media on direct dissemination used social media campaigns that posted less than once a day (approximately 0.36 [ 42 ] and 0.30 [ 43 ] posts per day or once a month publicizing a Twitter journal club [ 74 ]).

Within-Group Effects of Social Media on Direct Dissemination

Pooled findings indicated a large, significant within-group effect on direct dissemination after social media interventions compared to before in link clicks or views (SMD 1.93, 95% CI 1.23-2.62; P <.001; I 2 =92%; GRADE high) [ 40 , 44 , 45 , 53 , 63 , 70 , 79 - 81 , 83 , 84 ], article downloads (SMD 0.82, 95% CI 0.26-1.37; P =.004; I 2 =49%; GRADE moderate) [ 40 , 44 , 63 , 79 , 81 ], and altmetric attention score (SMD 1.92, 95% CI 0.75-3.09; P =.001; I 2 =92%; GRADE moderate) [ 44 , 45 , 51 , 74 , 77 , 79 , 83 ]. Studies that reported the largest effects used campaigns that included coordinated or paid social media software [ 63 , 83 , 84 ], posting at least once a day [ 45 , 63 , 83 , 84 ], visually attractive elements and links [ 44 , 45 , 63 , 83 , 84 ], hashtags, @mentions [ 45 , 83 , 84 ], multiple platforms (including Twitter and Facebook) [ 40 , 44 , 63 , 80 , 81 ], multiple accounts [ 40 , 44 , 45 ], associated blogs [ 40 , 44 , 45 , 79 , 81 ], podcasts [ 81 ], and tweet chats [ 51 , 80 ] ( Figure 5 [ 40 , 44 , 45 , 51 , 53 , 63 , 70 , 74 , 77 , 79 - 81 , 83 , 84 ]).

Between-Group Effects of Different Platforms, Formats, and Strategies on Direct Dissemination

Pooled findings showed no significant effect of the platform on direct dissemination (SMD 0.92, 95% CI –1.21 to 3.04; P =.40; I 2 =99%; GRADE low); both Twitter and Facebook appeared effective [ 48 , 70 ] ( Multimedia Appendix 3 ).

Pooled findings indicated large effects in favor of posts with images, particularly infographics, compared to no images. Effects were significant for link clicks or article views (SMD 1.18, 95% CI 0.27-2.10; P =.01; I 2 =88%; GRADE low) [ 41 , 44 , 45 , 56 , 69 ] and for altmetric attention score (SMD 1.19, 95% CI 0.04-2.35; P =.04; I 2 =83%; GRADE low) [ 44 , 45 , 69 ] but not for article downloads (SMD 0.26, 95% CI –0.32 to 0.83; P =.38; I 2 =0%; GRADE low) [ 44 , 69 ]. Evidence from individual studies also highlighted large, significant effects of podcasts compared to infographics and standard posts on direct dissemination [ 69 ] and a positive effect on link clicks of posts with links compared to posts with infographics [ 49 ] ( Multimedia Appendix 3 ).

There were insufficient studies comparing the effect of social media strategies on direct dissemination for pooled data analyses. Evidence from individual studies showed a large, significant effect on link clicks in favor of posting on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Saturdays compared to the other days of the week [ 53 ] and no effects of time of year [ 42 , 43 ] or non–peer-reviewed news source involvement [ 73 ] ( Multimedia Appendix 3 ).

A total of 13 studies (including 3 RCTs [ 46 - 48 ]) evaluated impact (7 assessed article citations [ 46 , 48 , 54 , 55 , 58 , 59 , 65 ], 3 investigated impact factors [ 54 , 61 , 64 ], and 4 examined changes in thinking or behavior [ 47 , 57 , 60 , 82 ]).

Effects of Social Media Compared to No Social Media on Impact

Pooled findings indicated a moderate between-group effect of social media compared to no social media on citations (SMD 0.76, 95% CI 0.49-1.03; P <.001; I 2 =79%; GRADE moderate) [ 46 , 48 , 55 , 58 , 59 , 61 , 64 , 65 ] and thinking and practice (SMD 0.65, 95% CI 0.37-0.93; P <.001; I 2 =55%; GRADE low) [ 57 , 60 ]. The largest effects on impact were shown in studies that used social media interventions, including links and relevant @mentions [ 46 , 55 , 57 - 61 ] in campaigns that often had relatively short durations (14 days [ 46 ] to ≤12 months [ 57 - 61 ]). Larger effects on citations were shown in studies sharing articles on broad topics (such as urology or surgery) [ 46 , 55 , 58 , 59 , 61 ], whereas effects on knowledge and practice were evident in social media campaigns that were focused on a specialist topic (eg, persistent genital arousal disorder [ 57 ] and complementary and alternative medicine in multiple sclerosis [ 60 ]). Studies that showed smaller between-group effects of social media on impact either described social media intervention with infrequent posts on social media (7 times per month, approximately 0.3 posts per day) [ 48 ] or without indicating post frequency [ 64 , 65 ] ( Figure 6 [ 46 , 48 , 55 , 57 - 61 , 64 , 65 ]).

Within-Group Effects of Social Media on Impact

There were insufficient studies comparing the impact on citations after social media interventions compared to before; however, pooled findings showed a small within-group effect on thinking and practice after social media interventions (SMD 0.45, 95% CI 0.07-0.83; P =.02; I 2 =91%; GRADE low) [ 47 , 60 , 82 ]. One RCT [ 47 ] and 1 nonrandomized study [ 82 ], both concerning tendinopathy practice points with links to research articles or evidence-based podcasts shared for 2 weeks on Twitter and Facebook, reported differing effect sizes on thinking and practice (small and nonsignificant in the RCT [ 47 ] but moderate and significant in the nonrandomized study [ 82 ]). Another nonrandomized study [ 60 ] also reported a moderate effect of a paid targeted social media advertising campaign on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and YouTube that included article links, images, videos, podcasts, and a live tweet chat with a prominent organization that impacted knowledge, attitudes, and behavior regarding complementary and alternative medicine in multiple sclerosis ( Figure 7 [ 47 , 60 , 82 ]).

Between-Group Effects of Different Platforms, Formats, and Strategies on Impact

There were insufficient studies comparing the effect of social media platforms on impact for pooled data analyses. Evidence from individual studies showed a large, significant effect on the journal impact factor of posting on ≥3 social media platforms [ 64 ]; a positive association between the journal impact factor and the number of social media platforms used [ 59 ]; and a small, nonsignificant effect of platform in favor of Twitter (vs Facebook) on knowledge and practice changes [ 47 ] ( Multimedia Appendix 3 ).

No included studies compared the effect of different formats on impact.

Pooled findings indicated a large, nonsignificant effect on citations of author tweets in addition to standard journal social media strategies (SMD 1.00, 95% CI –0.84 to 2.84; P =.29; I 2 =98%; GRADE very low; Multimedia Appendix 3 ) [ 54 , 55 ].

Considering all the evidence, there was high certainty that social media is effective for the dissemination of research to health care practitioners. The outcome with the highest certainty across all comparisons was direct dissemination. Evidence was insufficient to determine the size and certainty of between-group effects of social media compared to no social media on reach and engagement; however, there was moderate certainty of large and moderate effects of social media interventions on direct dissemination and impact, respectively. After social media exposure, there was moderate certainty of large, positive within-group effects on reach, engagement, and direct dissemination, whereas there was low certainty of a small effect on impact. Certainty was generally low regarding the size of the effects of platforms, formats, and strategies on each outcome. However, the direction of effects was consistently in favor of using multiple platforms (particularly Twitter and Facebook), using images (particularly infographics), and involving influential others in social media campaigns.

The level of certainty about the size of the effects in favor of social media was different depending on the outcome of interest and study characteristics. There was a tendency for smaller effect sizes in RCTs and studies with less-intensive social media interventions. The certainty ratings were lowered for all comparisons due to the variability of the included study designs, many of which were descriptive and not designed for rigorous quantitative evaluations, meaning most included studies had moderate risk of bias. Consistency and precision of effect size estimates were also threatened by the low number and heterogeneity of studies included in some comparisons. However, for some comparisons, certainty was uprated due to the large magnitude of estimated effects and potential dose-response gradients between the intensity of social media interventions and their effectiveness.

Principal Findings

There was evidence of the effectiveness of social media for the dissemination of research evidence to health care practitioners. All the included studies reported some findings in favor of social media, although there was considerable heterogeneity in effect sizes, and study quality was mixed. Effect sizes of social media effectiveness were influenced by the frequency, intensity, and composition of social media interventions. Effectiveness was enhanced by the use of multiple social media platforms (including Twitter and Facebook); multiple social media accounts; ≥1 social media post per day; appealing formats (including infographics or other visual media, blogs, and links to articles); professional social media marketing and scheduling tools and involving relevant and influential people, organizations, and events in social media campaigns.

Our findings that social media was beneficial for the dissemination of research evidence to practitioners concurred with existing literature about the largely positive impact of social media on dissemination [ 10 , 21 - 23 , 28 , 65 , 90 - 93 ]. Quantitative analyses in other studies have revealed positive correlations between social media use and the dissemination and impact of health research evidence [ 65 , 91 - 93 ]. Narrative and qualitative reviews have highlighted benefits of social media for clinicians including connectedness and network accessibility to all (particularly with increasing use of communication technology and mobile apps in practice and day-to-day life), the large audience of practitioners and policy makers that uses social media (particularly for information acquisition and educational purposes), and the effectiveness of social media to deliver clinical guidelines and research evidence–based information that could be implemented in practice [ 21 - 23 , 28 , 90 ]. Reviews also highlighted the challenges of synthesizing social media effectiveness for the dissemination of information due to the heterogeneity of how social media are studied and used [ 22 , 28 , 90 ].

Social media campaigns to disseminate research evidence to health care practitioners should consider target outcomes because specific features enhanced the 4 outcomes of interest differently ( Table 1 ).

Our quantitative findings in favor of using multiple social media platforms, including Twitter (for engagement in particular) and Facebook, concurred with existing literature that recommends using a range of social media platforms [ 23 , 28 , 90 , 94 ] and highlights the prominence of Twitter for research dissemination [ 28 ] and Twitter and Facebook for e-professionalism [ 22 ]. New knowledge from our systematic review includes the potentially beneficial effect of using multiple social media accounts on the same platform. This may also link with the apparent dose-response relationship between effectiveness and the average number of social media posts per day.

There was consistent evidence to support the use of visual media, particularly infographics for better reach, engagement, and direct dissemination; our findings suggest that social media effectiveness may also be enhanced by other post formats including podcasts, blogs, questions, and practice points to disseminate research evidence on social media. This adds to previous literature, which recommended posting a range of appealing multimedia that is accessible, useful, relevant, authentic, and credible [ 10 , 23 , 28 , 90 ]. Our review also highlighted the importance of including links to original research; comprehensive infographics or practice points posted on social media might reduce the likelihood of viewing the original article by link click [ 49 ]. Nevertheless, including links offers the viewer the opportunity to check the authenticity and credibility of the information in a post. Including links may also facilitate the delivery of simple, clear, and practice-relevant messages without scientific language [ 88 ] because the main message from the research can be easily understood and accessible to all practitioners, while further details can be sought by accessing the link.

Our findings corroborate existing recommendations to identify and involve key influencers, organizations, events, communities, #hashtags, and @mentions and to use professional tools to plan sustained, scheduled, and regular posts to overcome the transient nature of social media [ 10 , 23 , 28 , 90 ]. Our systematic review extends existing recommendations by identifying that posting at least once a day on average (often achieved using multiple accounts, platforms or both) was more effective than less-intensive social media strategies, suggesting a dose-response relationship between post frequency and social media effectiveness. This dose-response relationship may explain the negligible effect of one journal’s social media campaign tested in 2 RCTs included in this systematic review [ 42 , 43 ].

The optimal timing of social media posts and campaigns for the dissemination of research evidence to practitioners is contentious in existing literature [ 53 , 95 , 96 ]. Optimal timing may be outcome dependent; in this review, different times of the day and different days of the week were more effective depending on the outcome measured ( Table 1 ). Similarly, while reach and engagement may be enhanced by established social media initiatives extending over months or years, impact may be best achieved in shorter, targeted social media campaigns over days or weeks.

Our findings suggested a tendency for greater impact on thinking and practice from social media featuring targeted topics or specialist areas of health care. This concurred with previous reviews that found that the dissemination of clinical guidelines or clear, evidence-based behavior change messages, such as practice points , may increase impact with health care practitioners [ 90 , 94 ]. This also resonates with recommendations in the existing literature to consider the target audience when selecting platforms, formats, and strategies that optimize content for the dissemination of research evidence [ 23 , 88 , 90 , 94 ]. For instance, the choice of platform and content about pediatric colorectal cancer should be guided by the understanding that, in this field, Twitter is typically used to share research evidence, Facebook is used for support offered by nonprofit organizations, and Instagram is used for sharing personal stories [ 67 ].

Our findings suggested a tendency that social media was more effective on impact (in citations) when used to share research articles about broad topics. Thus, there may be interactions between the content of research evidence posts and the effectiveness of dissemination on social media, regardless of platform, format, or strategy. Indeed, there are indications in the wider literature that research evidence source, topic, and post content may influence how effectively it can be disseminated on social media. For example, geographically, compared to the United States, authors from Europe, and UK clinical guidelines, achieve better altmetric attention scores and citation rates [ 58 , 97 ]. Published articles may achieve greater reach, research conference posts may receive greater engagement [ 73 ], and clinical guidelines may better influence thinking and practice [ 90 ]. Research evidence that aligns with “hot topics” on social media may also achieve better reach and engagement [ 68 , 98 ]. Engagement, direct dissemination, and citation rates may be better for open-access articles (especially reviews) that are recently published with shorter titles (which are provocative, interrogative, or declarative and free from methodological description), with a greater number of authors, and by higher impact factor journals (often with a larger social media presence in terms of followers and number of tweets per month) [ 54 , 58 , 59 , 65 , 99 - 101 ]. Depending on the health topic, posts with humor, shock value, inaccuracies, rumors, or emotional content might achieve better reach [ 66 , 102 , 103 ]; posts with practical guidance may be more likely to be shared [ 66 , 102 , 104 , 105 ]; and short videos with positive titles might receive more likes and comments [ 104 ].

Strengths and Limitations

The key strengths of this systematic review are the quantitative meta-analytical methods used that allow robust conclusions based on cumulative evidence about the effective use of social media for the dissemination of research evidence to practitioners. Methodological limitations have been discussed in the published protocol [ 29 ]. The search strategy was comprehensive, using multiple reviewers to ensure reliability and comprising a range of study designs including RCTs. However, no studies were identified investigating the effectiveness of social media for the dissemination of research evidence to social care practitioners. There were also relatively few RCTs, and the mixed quality of the included studies reduced the certainty of evidence about effect sizes for some outcomes. A wide range of social media interventions and research evidence content were represented by the included studies; this reduced the risk of confounding by topic, source, or content. However, time may have reduced the consistency of findings between included studies because the research and social media landscapes are rapidly evolving and have changed significantly from 2010 to 2023 [ 11 , 14 ]. Furthermore, the time frame of outcome measurement can influence potentially transient social media effectiveness [ 55 ]. Effectiveness was evaluated thoroughly in 4 outcome domains, comprising 9 outcomes of interest and multiple measures; this helped to accommodate the variability of reporting and design in the included studies. Although the diversity of the included studies threatened the consistency of effect sizes, the direction of effect in favor of social media was consistent. The heterogeneity of findings was ameliorated using a random effects model for more conservative estimates of effect size than a fixed effects model. Using 4 outcome domains added nuance to the existing understanding and facilitated the development of clear suggestions about how to optimize social media effectiveness for the dissemination of research evidence to health care practitioners. However, a cautious interpretation of a causal relationship between dissemination effectiveness and specific social media tactics is required. Effects may have been inflated by other confounders; for example, larger organizations with greater resources for public relations not only can post more frequently on social media but also may have greater reputational influence and share higher-quality research.

Conclusions

In conclusion, social media were effective for disseminating research evidence to health care practitioners. Large effects of and after social media interventions on measures of direct dissemination were particularly evident. There may be a dose-response relationship between the intensity of the social media campaign and its effectiveness. Selected social media intervention characteristics including platforms, formats, and strategies may enhance reach, engagement, direct dissemination, and impact of research evidence for practitioners. Future research directions include repetition of this review to keep up with the rapidly evolving use of social media for research dissemination; quantitative testing of the potential dose-response relationship between dissemination effectiveness and social media frequency and intensity; and further evaluation and exploration of how different practitioner groups, particularly social care practitioners, use social media to access research evidence.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) and St George’s University of London. This study presents independent research funded by NIHR evidence (2022/01). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Health Service, the NIHR, or the Department of Health.

Data Availability

The data sets generated and analyzed during this study will be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Findings from this systematic review will be disseminated at academic conferences and promoted using a range of social media strategies.

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist.

Search strategy.

Description of the included articles and full details of meta-analyses.

• NIHR launches new centre for engagement and dissemination. National Institutes for Health and Care Research. URL: https://www.nihr.ac.uk/news/nihr-launches-new-centre-for-engagement-and-dissemination/24576 [accessed 2024-04-03]
• Embedding a research culture. National Institutes for Health and Care Research. URL: https:/​/www.​nihr.ac.uk/​health-and-care- professionals/​engagement-and-participation-in-research/​embedding-a-research-culture.​htm [accessed 2023-05-01]
• Saving and improving lives: the future of UK clinical research delivery. Department of Health & Social Care, Government of UK. Mar 2021. URL: https:/​/www.​gov.uk/​government/​publications/​the-future-of-uk-clinical-research-delivery/​saving-and -improving-lives-the-future-of-uk-clinical-research-delivery): [accessed 2024-04-03]
• Hayes C. Approaches to continuing professional development: putting theory into practice. Br J Nurs. Aug 11, 2016;25(15):860-864. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• What is evidence. Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. URL: https://www.csp.org.uk/professional-clinical/clinical-evidence/evidence-based-practice/what-evidence [accessed 2024-04-03]
• Castro-Sánchez E, Holmes AH. Impact of organizations on healthcare-associated infections. J Hosp Infect. Apr 2015;89(4):346-350. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• How to disseminate your research. National Institute of Health and Care Research. 2019. URL: https://www.nihr.ac.uk/doc uments/how-to-disseminate-your-research/19951 [accessed 2022-11-23]
• Henriksen D, Mishra P. Innovations in the dissemination of action research: rhetoric, media, and communication. In: Mertler CA, editor. The Wiley Handbook of Action Research in Education. Hoboken, NJ. John Wiley and Sons; 2019.
• Millar BC, Lim M. The role of visual abstracts in the dissemination of medical research. Ulster Med J. May 2022;91(2):67-78. [ FREE Full text ] [ Medline ]
• Zhao J, Harvey G, Vandyk A, Huang M, Hu J, Modanloo S, et al. Understanding how and under what circumstances social media supports health care providers' knowledge use in clinical practice: a realist review. Telemed J E Health. Apr 2023;29(4):475-500. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Ortiz-Ospina E. The rise of social media. Our World in Data. 2019. URL: https://ourworldindata.org/rise-of-social-media [accessed 2024-04-03]
• Galbraith K, Ward A, Heneghan C. A real-world approach to evidence-based medicine in general practice: a competency framework derived from a systematic review and Delphi process. BMC Med Educ. May 03, 2017;17(1):78. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Bwanga O. Barriers to continuing professional development (CPD) in radiography: a review of literature from Africa. Health Prof Educ. Dec 2020;6(4):472-480. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bornmann L, Haunschild R, Mutz R. Growth rates of modern science: a latent piecewise growth curve approach to model publication numbers from established and new literature databases. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. Oct 07, 2021;8(1):224. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tunnecliff J, Ilic D, Morgan P, Keating J, Gaida JE, Clearihan L, et al. The acceptability among health researchers and clinicians of social media to translate research evidence to clinical practice: mixed-methods survey and interview study. J Med Internet Res. May 20, 2015;17(5):e119. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Zhu Z, Xing W, Hu Y, Zhou Y, Gu Y. Improving evidence dissemination and accessibility through a mobile-based resource platform. J Med Syst. May 28, 2018;42(7):118. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Using social media platforms to disseminate Cochrane evidence in China. Cochrane Community. URL: https://community.cochrane.org/news/using-social-media-platforms-disseminate-cochrane-evidence-china [accessed 2022-10-21]
• Chambers CT, Dol J, Parker JA, Caes L, Birnie KA, Taddio A, et al. Implementation effectiveness of a parent-directed YouTube video ("it doesn't have to hurt") on evidence-based strategies to manage needle pain: descriptive survey study. JMIR Pediatr Parent. Mar 04, 2020;3(1):e13552. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Korda H, Itani Z. Harnessing social media for health promotion and behavior change. Health Promot Pract. Jan 2013;14(1):15-23. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Moorhead SA, Hazlett DE, Harrison L, Carroll JK, Irwin A, Hoving C. A new dimension of health care: systematic review of the uses, benefits, and limitations of social media for health communication. J Med Internet Res. Apr 23, 2013;15(4):e85. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Ventola CL. Social media and health care professionals: benefits, risks, and best practices. P T. Jul 2014;39(7):491-520. [ FREE Full text ] [ Medline ]
• Giustini D, Ali SM, Fraser M, Kamel Boulos MN. Effective uses of social media in public health and medicine: a systematic review of systematic reviews. Online J Public Health Inform. 2018;10(2):e215. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Elliott SA, Dyson MP, Wilkes GV, Zimmermann GL, Chambers CT, Wittmeier KD, et al. Considerations for health researchers using social media for knowledge translation: multiple case study. J Med Internet Res. Jul 23, 2020;22(7):e15121. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Johannsson H, Selak T. Dissemination of medical publications on social media - is it the new standard? Anaesthesia. Feb 23, 2020;75(2):155-157. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Farsi D. Social media and health care, part I: literature review of social media use by health care providers. J Med Internet Res. Apr 05, 2021;23(4):e23205. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Heaton-Shrestha C, Hanson K, Quirke-McFarlane S, Delaney N, Vandrevala T, Bearne L. Exploring how members of the public access and use health research and information: a scoping review. BMC Public Health. Nov 07, 2023;23(1):2179. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Dol J, Tutelman PR, Chambers CT, Barwick M, Drake EK, Parker JA, et al. Health researchers' use of social media: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. Nov 13, 2019;21(11):e13687. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Farris O, Todd A, Tomlin A, Badenoch D, Lamb D. #Dissemination: a systematic review of the role of social media in circulating healthcare research (pre-print submitted to but not published by JMIR). JMIR Preprints. Preprint posted online December 24, 2021. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ]
• Roberts-Lewis SF, Baxter HA, Mein G, Quirke-McFarlane S, Leggat FJ, Garner HM, et al. The use of social media for dissemination of research evidence to health and social care practitioners: protocol for a systematic review. JMIR Res Protoc. May 12, 2023;12:e45684. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). Sep 2021;74(9):790-799. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Chandler J, Welch VA, Higgins JP, et al. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Oct 03, 2019;10(10):ED000142. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Sterne JA, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. Aug 28, 2019;366:l4898. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. 2000. URL: https://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp [accessed 2022-10-20]
• Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd edition. Hillsdale, NJ. Laurence Erlbaum Publishers; 1988.
• Burke JF, Sussman JB, Kent DM, Hayward RA. Three simple rules to ensure reasonably credible subgroup analyses. BMJ. Nov 04, 2015;351:h5651. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE Working Group. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. Apr 26, 2008;336(7650):924-926. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Schünemann H, Bro'ek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A. GRADE handbook. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. URL: https:/​/gdt.​gradepro.org/​app/​handbook/​handbook.​html#:~:text=GRADE%20handbook&text=The%20 GRADE%20handbook%20describes%20the,www.​gradeworkinggroup.​org) [accessed 2023-10-01]
• Siemieniuk R, Guyatt G. What is GRADE? Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) Toolkit. URL: https://bestpractice.bmj.com/info/toolkit/learn-ebm/what-is-grade/ [accessed 2023-10-01]
• Adams CE, Jayaram M, Bodart AY, Sampson S, Zhao S, Montgomery AA. Tweeting links to Cochrane schizophrenia group reviews: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. Mar 08, 2016;6(3):e010509. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Allen HG, Stanton TR, Di Pietro F, Moseley GL. Social media release increases dissemination of original articles in the clinical pain sciences. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e68914. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Chapman SJ, Grossman RC, FitzPatrick ME, Brady RR. Randomized controlled trial of plain English and visual abstracts for disseminating surgical research via social media. Br J Surg. Oct 02, 2019:1611-1616. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Fox CS, Bonaca MA, Ryan JJ, Massaro JM, Barry K, Loscalzo J. A randomized trial of social media from Circulation. Circulation. Jan 06, 2015;131(1):28-33. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Fox CS, Gurary EB, Ryan J, Bonaca M, Barry K, Loscalzo J, et al. Randomized controlled trial of social media: effect of increased intensity of the intervention. J Am Heart Assoc. Apr 27, 2016;5(5):e003088. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Huang S, Martin LJ, Yeh CH, Chin A, Murray H, Sanderson WB, et al. The effect of an infographic promotion on research dissemination and readership: a randomized controlled trial. CJEM. Nov 2018;20(6):826-833. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Luc JG, Archer MA, Arora RC, Bender EM, Blitz A, Cooke DT, et al. Social media improves cardiothoracic surgery literature dissemination: results of a randomized trial. Ann Thorac Surg. Feb 2020;109(2):589-595. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Luc JG, Archer MA, Arora RC, Bender EM, Blitz A, Cooke DT, et al. Does tweeting improve citations? One-year results from the TSSMN prospective randomized trial. Ann Thorac Surg. Jan 2021;111(1):296-300. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Tunnecliff J, Weiner J, Gaida JE, Keating JL, Morgan P, Ilic D, et al. Translating evidence to practice in the health professions: a randomized trial of Twitter vs Facebook. J Am Med Inform Assoc. Mar 01, 2017;24(2):403-408. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Widmer RJ, Mandrekar J, Ward A, Aase LA, Lanier WL, Timimi FK, et al. Effect of promotion via social media on access of articles in an academic medical journal: a randomized controlled trial. Acad Med. Oct 2019;94(10):1546-1553. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Barlow B, Barlow A, Webb A, Cain J. "Capturing your audience": analysis of Twitter engagements between tweets linked with an educational infographic or a peer-reviewed journal article. J Vis Commun Med. Oct 2020;43(4):177-183. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Botting N, Dipper L, Hilari K. The effect of social media promotion on academic article uptake. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. Jun 11, 2016;68(3):795-800. [ CrossRef ]
• Cawcutt KA, Erdahl LM, Englander MJ, Radford DM, Oxentenko AS, Girgis L, et al. Use of a coordinated social media strategy to improve dissemination of research and collect solutions related to workforce gender equity. J Womens Health (Larchmt). Jun 2019;28(6):849-862. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Cevik M, Ong DS, Mackenzie G. How scientists and physicians use Twitter during a medical congress. Clin Microbiol Infect. Dec 2019;25(12):1561.e7-1561.12. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Fargen KM, Ducruet AF, Hyer M, Hirsch JA, Tarr RW. Expanding the social media presence of the Journal of Neurointerventional Surgery: editor's report. J Neurointerv Surg. Feb 2017;9(2):215-218. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Gunaratne K, Haghbayan H, Coomes EA. Tweeting authors: impact on research publicity and downstream citations. J Gen Intern Med. Jun 2020;35(6):1926-1927. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Hayon S, Tripathi H, Stormont IM, Dunne MM, Naslund MJ, Siddiqui MM. Twitter mentions and academic citations in the urologic literature. Urology. Jan 2019;123:28-33. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Ibrahim AM, Lillemoe KD, Klingensmith ME, Dimick JB. Visual abstracts to disseminate research on social media: a prospective, case-control crossover study. Ann Surg. Dec 2017;266(6):e46-e48. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Jackowich RA, Young M, Poirier É, Pukall CF. #PGADFacts: Results from a 12-month knowledge translation campaign on persistent genital arousal disorder/genito-pelvic dysesthesia (PGAD/GPD). Can J Hum Sex. Sep 01, 2022;31(2):242-252. [ CrossRef ]
• Jeong JW, Kim MJ, Oh HK, Jeong S, Kim MH, Cho JR, et al. The impact of social media on citation rates in coloproctology. Colorectal Dis. Oct 2019;21(10):1175-1182. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Mobarak S, Stott MC, Lee W, Davé MS, Tarazi M, Macutkiewicz C. The importance of social media to the academic surgical literature: relationship between Twitter activity and readership metrics. Surgery. Sep 2021;170(3):650-656. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Narayanaswami P, Gronseth G, Dubinsky R, Penfold-Murray R, Cox J, Bever Jr C, et al. The impact of social media on dissemination and implementation of clinical practice guidelines: a longitudinal observational study. J Med Internet Res. Aug 13, 2015;17(8):e193. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Nason GJ, O'Kelly F, Kelly ME, Phelan N, Manecksha RP, Lawrentschuk N, et al. The emerging use of Twitter by urological journals. BJU Int. Mar 2015;115(3):486-490. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Navarro SM, Mazingi D, Keil E, Dube A, Dedeker C, Stewart KA, et al. Identifying new frontiers for social media engagement in global surgery: an observational study. World J Surg. Sep 2020;44(9):2881-2891. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Ng FK, Wallace S, Coe B, Owen A, Lynch J, Bonvento B, et al. From smartphone to bed-side: exploring the use of social media to disseminate recommendations from the National Tracheostomy Safety Project to front-line clinical staff. Anaesthesia. Feb 2020;75(2):227-233. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• O'Kelly F, Nason GJ, Manecksha RP, Cascio S, Quinn FJ, Leonard M, et al. The effect of social media (#SoMe) on journal impact factor and parental awareness in paediatric urology. J Pediatr Urol. Oct 2017;13(5):513.e1-513.e7. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Ozkent MS, Böcü K, Altintas E, Gul M. Correlation between Twitter mentions and academic citations in sexual medicine journals. Int J Impot Res. Sep 12, 2022;34(6):593-598. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Patel VR, Gereta S, Blanton CJ, Chu AL, Reddy NK, Mackert M, et al. #ColonCancer: social media discussions about colorectal cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. Jan 2022;6:e2100180. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Reppucci ML, De La Torre L, Peña A, Judd-Glossy L, Pickett K, Ketzer J, et al. The use of social media among the pediatric colorectal community. Pediatr Surg Int. Jan 2022;38(1):43-50. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Rotolo SM, Jain S, Dhaon S, Dokhanchi JK, Kalata E, Shah T, et al. A coordinated strategy to develop and distribute infographics addressing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and misinformation. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2022;62(1):224-231. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Thoma B, Murray H, Huang SY, Milne WK, Martin LJ, Bond CM, et al. The impact of social media promotion with infographics and podcasts on research dissemination and readership. CJEM. Mar 2018;20(2):300-306. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Trueger NS, Bokarius AV, Carroll S, April MD, Thoma B. Impact of a physician-led social media sharing program on a medical journal's web traffic. J Am Coll Radiol. Jan 2018;15(1 Pt B):184-189. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Utengen A, Rouholiman D, Gamble JG, Grajales III FJ, Pradhan N, Staley AC, et al. Patient participation at health care conferences: engaged patients increase information flow, expand propagation, and deepen engagement in the conversation of tweets compared to physicians or researchers. J Med Internet Res. Aug 17, 2017;19(8):e280. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Wadhwa V, Latimer E, Chatterjee K, McCarty J, Fitzgerald RT. Maximizing the tweet engagement rate in academia: analysis of the AJNR Twitter feed. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. Oct 2017;38(10):1866-1868. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Widmer RJ, Engler NB, Geske JB, Klarich KW, Timimi FK. An academic healthcare Twitter account: the Mayo Clinic experience. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. Jun 2016;19(6):360-366. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Wray CM, Auerbach AD, Arora VM. The adoption of an online journal club to improve research dissemination and social media engagement among hospitalists. J Hosp Med. Nov 2018;13(11):764-769. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Bolderston A, Meeking K, Snaith B, Watson J, Westerink A, Woznitza N. Five years of #MedRadJClub: an impact evaluation of an established Twitter journal club. J Med Radiat Sci. Jun 2022;69(2):165-173. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Carley S, Beardsell I, May N, Crowe L, Baombe J, Grayson A, et al. Social-media-enabled learning in emergency medicine: a case study of the growth, engagement and impact of a free open access medical education blog. Postgrad Med J. Feb 2018;94(1108):92-96. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Dyson MP, Newton AS, Shave K, Featherstone RM, Thomson D, Wingert A, et al. Social media for the dissemination of cochrane child health evidence: evaluation study. J Med Internet Res. Sep 01, 2017;19(9):e308. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Gardhouse AI, Budd L, Yang SY, Wong CL. #GeriMedJC: the twitter complement to the traditional-format geriatric medicine journal club. J Am Geriatr Soc. Jun 22, 2017;65(6):1347-1351. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Gates A, Featherstone R, Shave K, Scott SD, Hartling L. Dissemination of evidence in paediatric emergency medicine: a quantitative descriptive evaluation of a 16-week social media promotion. BMJ Open. Jun 06, 2018;8(6):e022298. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Hawkins CM, Hillman BJ, Carlos RC, Rawson JV, Haines R, Duszak Jr R. The impact of social media on readership of a peer-reviewed medical journal. J Am Coll Radiol. Nov 2014;11(11):1038-1043. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Hoang JK, McCall J, Dixon AF, Fitzgerald RT, Gaillard F. Using social media to share your radiology research: how effective is a blog post? J Am Coll Radiol. Jul 2015;12(7):760-765. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Maloney S, Tunnecliff J, Morgan P, Gaida JE, Clearihan L, Sadasivan S, et al. Translating evidence into practice via social media: a mixed-methods study. J Med Internet Res. Oct 26, 2015;17(10):e242. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• McNamara P, Usher K. Share or perish: social media and the International Journal of Mental Health Nursing. Int J Ment Health Nurs. Aug 30, 2019;28(4):960-970. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Niehaus WN, Silver JK, Katz MS. The PM and R journal implements a social media strategy to disseminate research and track alternative metrics in physical medicine and rehabilitation. PM R. May 2018;10(5):538-543. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Rohilla R, Kumar MP, Patil AN, Panchal S, Arora A, Gupta M. Appropriateness evaluation of drug information center's Facebook page for evidence-based drug information dissemination. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2020;60(6):e129-e132. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Segura Sampedro JJ, Morales Soriano R, Ramos Rodríguez JL, González-Argenté FJ, Mayol J. Twitter® use and its implications in Spanish association of surgeons meetings and congresses. Cir Esp (Engl Ed). 2018;96(6):352-356. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Buckarma EH, Thiels CA, Gas BL, Cabrera D, Bingener-Casey J, Farley DR. Influence of social media on the dissemination of a traditional surgical research article. J Surg Educ. 2017;74(1):79-83. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Lindquist LA, Ramirez-Zohfeld V. Visual abstracts to disseminate geriatrics research through social media. J Am Geriatr Soc. Jun 2019;67(6):1128-1131. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Schwenk ES, Jaremko KM, Gupta RK, Udani AD, McCartney CJ, Snively A, et al. Upgrading a social media strategy to increase Twitter engagement during the spring annual meeting of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2017;42(3):283-288. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Bhatt NR, Czarniecki SW, Borgmann H, van Oort IM, Esperto F, Pradere B, et al. EAU Guidelines Office Dissemination Committee. A systematic review of the use of social media for dissemination of clinical practice guidelines. Eur Urol Focus. Sep 2021;7(5):1195-1204. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Eysenbach G. Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. J Med Internet Res. Dec 19, 2011;13(4):e123. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Wong K, Piraquive J, Levi JR. Social media presence of otolaryngology journals: the past, present, and future. Laryngoscope. Feb 2018;128(2):363-368. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Azer SA, Azer S. Top-cited articles in medical professionalism: a bibliometric analysis versus altmetric scores. BMJ Open. Jul 31, 2019;9(7):e029433. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Zhao J, Harvey G, Vandyk A, Gifford W. Social media for ImpLementing evidence (SMILE): conceptual framework. JMIR Form Res. Mar 09, 2022;6(3):e29891. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Alotaibi NM, Samuel N, Guha D, Nassiri F, Badhiwala JH, Tam J, et al. Social media for academic neurosurgical programs: the University of Toronto experience. World Neurosurg. Sep 2016;93:449-457. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Sabato LA, Barone C, McKinney K. Use of social media to engage membership of a state health-system pharmacy organization. Am J Health Syst Pharm. Jan 01, 2017;74(1):e72-e75. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• AlRyalat SA, Malkawi L, Alsaedi AA, Ashouri K, El Khatib O, Yaseen A, et al. Comparing the attention score between American and European cardiology guidelines. High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev. Jun 2020;27(3):259-264. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Lu Y, Wu Y, Liu J, Li J, Zhang P. Understanding health care social media use from different stakeholder perspectives: a content analysis of an online health community. J Med Internet Res. Apr 07, 2017;19(4):e109. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Araujo AC, Vanin AA, Nascimento DP, Gonzalez GZ, Costa LO. What are the variables associated with Altmetric scores? Syst Rev. Jun 30, 2021;10(1):193. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Araujo AC, Nascimento DP, Gonzalez GZ, Maher CG, Pena Costa LO. Impact of low back pain clinical trials measured by the Altmetric score: cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res. Apr 05, 2018;20(4):e86. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Kunze KN, Manzi JE, Polce EM, Vadhera A, Bhandari M, Piuzzi NS. High social media attention scores are not reflective of study quality: an altmetrics-based content analysis. Intern Emerg Med. Aug 2022;17(5):1363-1374. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Gough A, Hunter RF, Ajao O, Jurek A, McKeown G, Hong J, et al. Tweet for behavior change: using social media for the dissemination of public health messages. JMIR Public Health Surveill. Mar 23, 2017;3(1):e14. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Biancovilli P, Makszin L, Csongor A. Breast cancer on social media: a quali-quantitative study on the credibility and content type of the most shared news stories. BMC Womens Health. May 15, 2021;21(1):202. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Chen Q, Min C, Zhang W, Ma X, Evans R. factors driving citizen engagement with government TikTok accounts during the COVID-19 pandemic: model development and analysis. J Med Internet Res. Feb 04, 2021;23(2):e21463. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Harris JK, Mart A, Moreland-Russell S, Caburnay CA. Diabetes topics associated with engagement on Twitter. Prev Chronic Dis. May 07, 2015;12:E62. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]

Abbreviations

Edited by T de Azevedo Cardoso; submitted 31.07.23; peer-reviewed by A Araujo, M Katz; comments to author 22.11.23; revised version received 15.12.23; accepted 18.03.24; published 05.06.24.

©Sarah Roberts-Lewis, Helen Baxter, Gill Mein, Sophia Quirke-McFarlane, Fiona J Leggat, Hannah Garner, Martha Powell, Sarah White, Lindsay Bearne. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 05.06.2024.

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 the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

Physical Review Research

• Collections
• Editorial Team
• Open Access

Quantum simulation of the pseudo-Hermitian Landau-Zener-Stückelberg-Majorana effect

Feliks kivelä, shruti dogra, and gheorghe sorin paraoanu, phys. rev. research 6 , 023246 – published 4 june 2024.

• No Citing Articles

While the Hamiltonians used in standard quantum mechanics are Hermitian, it is also possible to extend the theory to non-Hermitian Hamiltonians. Particularly interesting are non-Hermitian Hamiltonians satisfying parity–time ( P T ) symmetry, or more generally pseudo-Hermiticity, since such non-Hermitian Hamiltonians can still exhibit real eigenvalues. In this article, we present a quantum simulation of the time-dependent non-Hermitian non- P T -symmetric Hamiltonian used in a pseudo-Hermitian extension of the Landau–Zener–Stückelberg–Majorana (LZSM) model. The simulation is implemented on a superconducting processor by using Naimark dilation to transform a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian for one qubit into a Hermitian Hamiltonian for a qubit and an ancilla; postselection on the ancilla state ensures that the qubit undergoes nonunitary time evolution corresponding to the original non-Hermitian Hamiltonian. We observe properties such as the dependence of transition probabilities on time and the replacement of conservation of total probability by other dynamical invariants in agreement with predictions based on a theoretical treatment of the pseudo-Hermitian LZSM system.

• Received 2 February 2024
• Accepted 17 April 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.023246

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

• Research Areas
• Physical Systems

Authors & Affiliations

• QTF Centre of Excellence, Department of Applied Physics, Aalto University , FI-00076 Aalto, Finland

Article Text

Vol. 6, Iss. 2 — June - August 2024

Subject Areas

• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Quantum Physics

Authorization Required

Other options.

• Buy Article »
• Find an Institution with the Article »

Download & Share

A plot of the energies E (in units of Ω 0 ) of the diabatic and adiabatic states | 0 〉 (cyan), | 1 〉 (yellow), | E + 〉 (red), and | E − 〉 (blue) as functions of time (in units of Ω 0 / v ), with various values of the parameter k . A system starting in the state | E + 〉 = | 0 〉 (or | E − 〉 = | 1 〉 ) at t = − ∞ and traversing the avoided crossing region towards t = ∞ will follow the diabatic state | 0 〉 ( | 1 〉 ) and transition to | E − 〉 ( | E + 〉 ) with a probability of P (black arrows). Solid lines indicate purely real energy values, while the dashed lines in the k = − 1 case represent the imaginary parts of purely imaginary energy values.

An example of a quantum circuit obtained by decomposing a time-evolution operator [including state initialization as described in Eq. ( 29 )]. This particular circuit was used for the final data point (at t = 20 ℏ / v ) for the k = 0.5 case in the results presented below in Fig.  3 . The circuit features two qubits (the system qubit and the ancilla) as well as a two-bit classical register where the state of the system is measured to at the end of the circuit. The colored boxes are U ( θ , ϕ , λ ) quantum gates that represent three-dimensional single-qubit rotations by the three given Euler angles. The blue symbols are controlled- not gates, with the smaller circle denoting the control qubit and the larger one the target qubit.

The probabilities of the states | 0 〉 q ( P 0 → 0 , blue) and | 1 〉 q ( P 0 → 1 , orange) as functions of time (in units of ℏ / v ), with | 0 〉 q as the initial state, Ω 0 = ℏ v , and various values of k . The invariant k P 0 → 0 + P 0 → 1 (green), which should be equal to k , is also included. Solid lines represent theoretical results, crosses are results obtained assuming a perfectly accurate quantum computer, and dots are results computed with a real quantum computer.

The data from Fig.  3 before the postselection process. The probabilities of the states | 00 〉 aq ( P a 0 → 00 , blue), | 01 〉 aq ( P a 0 → 01 , orange), | 10 〉 aq ( P a 0 → 10 , green), and | 11 〉 aq ( P a 0 → 11 , red) as functions of time (in units of ℏ / v ), with Ω 0 = ℏ v and various values of k . The qubit starts in the state | 0 〉 q , while the initial state of the ancilla (the a in P a 0 ) is given by Eq. ( 27 ).

The probabilities of the states | 0 〉 q ( P 1 → 0 , blue) and | 1 〉 q ( P 1 → 1 , orange) as functions of time (in units of ℏ / v ), with | 1 〉 q as the initial state, Ω 0 = ℏ v , and various values of k . The invariant k P 1 → 0 + P 1 → 1 (green), which should be equal to 1, is also included.

The dependence of the total probability P 0 → 0 + P 0 → 1 and the invariant relation k P 0 → 0 + P 0 → 1 on k and time (in units of ℏ / v ), with Ω 0 = ℏ v .

The probabilities of the states | 0 〉 q ( P 0 → 0 , blue) and | 1 〉 q ( P 0 → 1 , orange) as a function of Ω 0 (in units of ℏ v ), with | 0 〉 q as the initial state, t = 20 ℏ / v , and various values of t 0 and k . As Ω 0 represents the coupling between the diabatic states, increasing its value increases the probability P 0 → 1 of a transition.

Sign up to receive regular email alerts from Physical Review Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

• Forgot your username/password?
• Create an account

Article Lookup

Paste a citation or doi, enter a citation.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

• Your Health
• Treatments & Tests
• Health Inc.
• Public Health

Shots - Health News

Fda advisors reject mdma therapy for ptsd, amid concerns over research, mdma recommendations.

A dose of MDMA. The drug has been studied as a treatment for PTSD and FDA is now considering whether to approve it. Travis Dove/for The Washington Post via Getty Images hide caption

A panel of experts advising the Food and Drug Administration on the use of the psychedelic MDMA for post-traumatic stress disorder found on Tuesday that the available evidence fails to show that the drug is effective or that its benefits outweigh its risks.

It represents a major setback for proponents of the drug and its sponsor Lykos Therapeutics, potentially jeopardizing FDA approval of the treatment.

Following public comment and discussion, the panel voted 9-2 that MDMA – in combination with talk therapy – is not effective for treating PTSD. And they voted 10-1 that the benefits of MDMA treatment don’t outweigh its risks.

While the FDA puts stock in the panel’s advice, it does not have to follow their recommendation.

However, that would be surprising given the host of concerns raised during the all-day meeting.

Remarks during the meeting from FDA staff and members of the advisory panel highlighted some major shortcomings in the clinical research. These include uncertainties and gaps in the data, unanswered questions about its potential for abuse and a lack of evidence supporting the psychological approach used in the therapy sessions.

“It seems like there are so many problems with the data,” said Melissa Barone, one of the panelists and a psychologist with the VA Maryland Health Care System. “Each one alone might be okay, but when you pile them up on top of each other...”

Many members of the panel brought up allegations that have surfaced about possible misconduct and bias in the trials that could have skewed the results.

“I have real concerns with the validity of the data and the allegations of misconduct,” said Elizabeth Joniak-Grant, a sociologist and a member of the panel. “I can't in good conscience support something where these many harms are being reported.”

Scientists with the FDA didn’t share details, but acknowledged the agency was investigating some of the claims, which have surfaced in a petition to the agency and outside reports on the trials.

Dr. Walter Dunn, a psychiatrist at UCLA, was one of the few who voted in favor of the treatment's efficacy. He acknowledged the misconduct allegations, but said ultimately the effect sizes of the treatment were large enough to indicate it can be effective for PTSD.

A big moment for psychedelics

The significance of the moment was not lost on those in attendance though.

There are only two FDA-approved treatments for PTSD and MDMA would be the first to come on the market in decades. It would also be a milestone for the broader effort to expand access to psychedelics.

“We are charting new territory,” said Kim Witczak, a consumer representative on the FDA’s advisory committee. “We want to set it up right.”

Representatives of Lykos emphasized the positive findings in clinical data collected during two nearly identical randomized controlled trials.

For example, one of those studies showed 67% of participants in the MDMA treatment arm no longer met the diagnostic criteria for PTSD following three dosing sessions with MDMA, compared to about 32% in the placebo group who underwent the therapy sessions but did not receive an active drug.

“In totality, these results support [that] MDMA in combination with psychological intervention provides significant and meaningful reductions in PTSD symptoms and functional impairment in patients with PTSD,” said Berra Yazar-Klosinski, chief scientific officer for Lykos.

FDA staff and the advisors did not dwell on those rosy results, though.

While the study took steps to “blind” study participants, there was considerable discussion around the fact many of those in the study could tell they had received the experimental drug, leading to what’s known as “functional unblinding,” which can ultimately affect the results.

“Although we do have two positive studies, the results are in the context of dramatic functional unblinding,” says Dr. David Millis, clinical reviewer for the FDA.

Another potential sticking point was the lack of data about how patients experienced the acute effects of the drug, including feelings like “euphoria” or “elevated mood.” That data helps inform the FDA’s assessments of the drug’s abuse potential.

“We noticed a striking lack of abuse-related adverse events,” said Millis, noting that the FDA had advised the study sponsors to collect this type of data.

While MDMA is currently listed as a Schedule I drug, the agency’s review found it has the same abuse potential as a Schedule II stimulant , a category that includes cocaine.

“We're actually managing more and more severe cases of MDMA overdose, and so I'm less concerned about the safety in the acute setting, but more chronically if they go on to abuse MDMA,” said Maryann Amirshahi, a professor of emergency medicine at Georgetown University and a member of the committee.

About 40% of those enrolled in the MDMA study had a history of using it prior to the study.

Alongside its positive findings on the short-term effects of MDMA, Lykos presented data from a follow-up observational study intended to suss out the staying power of the treatment.

While not yet published in a peer-reviewed journal, that data “suggest evidence of MDMA’s durability to at least six months,” said Yazar-Klosinski with Lykos.

However, the FDA staff highlighted various issues with that long-term data, including a dropout rate of 25% and the fact that some participants sought therapy and, in some cases, used illicit drugs, including MDMA.

The form of talk therapy used in the MDMA sessions also troubled some on the panel who noted there wasn’t strong data to support its use outside of the trial. “The psychological intervention is still for me a bit of a black box,” said Dr. Paul Holtzheimer with the National Center for PTSD. “What was described is really a relatively vague, ill-defined treatment.”

Hearing from patients

Some of the strongest arguments for approval came from patients who spoke during the public comment period about the urgent need for an effective treatment. Some had taken part in the MDMA trials and said they found the medication to be transformative.

“I was fortunate enough to enroll and get accepted, ultimately changing my life forever,” said Nick Brown, a military veteran from Colorado, who described how the treatment gave him self-compassion and allowed him to “get better sleep, have better relationships, and live what feels like a completely new life.”

Other groups representing veterans echoed these sentiments.

“I fear what will happen to them if this therapy is not approved,” said Jonathan Lubecky, a veteran who underwent MDMA-assisted therapy ten years ago, “Imagine how many lives your vote could save. Imagine how many will be lost if you did vote against this vital therapy .”

But for all the promising anecdotes of recovery, there were also many involved in psychedelic research who raised concerns about how the trials were run and the persistent problems in the data.

Harsh critics speak out

Some of the harshest criticism came from several researchers who had initially petitioned the FDA to hold the public hearing, including Neşe Devenot, a researcher at Johns Hopkins University, who said the model of therapy “incentivized boundary violations.”

Data shared from Lykos showed a range of adverse events.

The majority of those in the study had a history of suicidal ideation in their lifetime, but during the study period “the frequency of these symptoms was comparable between the two groups, said Dr. Alia Lilienstein, senior medical director for Lykos Therapeutics.

“Of note there were no suicidal behaviors or attempts reported in the MDMA group,” she said.

That point is particularly contentious because of recent allegations that certain adverse events were not reported. The petition calling for the advisory meeting outlined these concerns and others, citing an unnamed former employee of the drug company.

There is already a well-documented case of two therapists in the Phase 2 trials with a participant who said they engaged in inappropriate contact with her while she was under the influence of MDMA. The videos of the two therapists in bed with the participant were eventually made public by a podcast.

“Let's try to not gloss over this misconduct. It was sexual misconduct. That's particularly important,” said Joniak-Grant, a sociologist and a member of the panel.

Several other panelists asked questions about the potential that MDMA, once available widely in therapeutic settings, could lead to other instances of unethical behavior.

Last month, a report from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, a group that evaluates clinical data and drug prices, concluded there was insufficient evidence to assess the overall net benefit of MDMA-assisted therapy, after a lengthy investigation into the trial data.

That report stated that it’s possible those involved in the trials including therapists and investigators encouraged the reporting of positive events and downplayed adverse events.

The drug company has pushed back on the allegations and said it stands behind the data.

A public comment submitted to the FDA by one trial participant said her therapist encouraged her to view “worsening symptoms as evidence of healing and ‘spiritual awakening’” and that she and other participants later struggled with suicidality following the trial.

When asked if some participants may have been discouraged from participating in the long term durability study, Lillenstein said those claims had been investigated.

“All participants who were interested in participating were given the opportunity to review consent, and some chose not to participate after reviewing consent, but otherwise everyone was given the opportunity,” she said.

Correction June 4, 2024

An earlier version of this story said that MDMA is a Schedule III drug. In fact it is a Schedule I drug.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Electric Cars Are Suddenly Becoming Affordable

More efficient manufacturing, falling battery costs and intense competition are lowering sticker prices for battery-powered models to within striking distance of gasoline cars.

By Jack Ewing

Alex Lawrence, a dealer in Salt Lake City who specializes in used electric cars, has seen a change over the last year in the kinds of customers who are coming into his showroom. They used to be well-heeled professionals who could drop $70,000 on a Rivian luxury pickup truck.

Recently, Mr. Lawrence said, customers have been snapping up used Teslas for a little over $20,000, after applying a $4,000 federal tax credit.

“We’re seeing younger people,” Mr. Lawrence said. “We are seeing more blue-collar and entry-level white-collar people. The purchase price of the car has suddenly become in reach.”

Regarded by conservative politicians and other critics as playthings of the liberal elite, electric vehicles are fast becoming more accessible. Prices are falling because of increased competition, lower raw-material costs and more efficient manufacturing. Federal tax credits of up to $7,500 for new electric cars, often augmented by thousands of dollars in state incentives, push prices even lower.

At the same time, technology is improving quickly and making electric vehicles more practical. Cars that can travel more than 300 miles on a fully charged battery are becoming common, and charging times are dropping below 30 minutes. The number of fast chargers, which can top up a battery in less than half an hour, grew 36 percent from April 2023 to April 2024.

Carmakers including Tesla, Ford, General Motors and Stellantis, the owner of Jeep, have announced plans for electric vehicles that would sell new for as little as $25,000.

“The E.V. market has hit an inflection point,” said Randy Parker, chief executive of Hyundai Motor America, which will begin producing electric vehicles at a factory in Georgia by the end of the year. “The early adopters have come. They’ve got their cars. Now you’re starting to see us transition to a mass market.”

All this is good news for proponents of electric vehicles and the Biden administration, which is aiming for half of new cars sold to be electric by 2030 as part of the president’s plan to combat climate change. Even if Republicans gain control of the White House and Congress and follow through on promises to dismantle electric vehicle subsidies, they may not be able to undo the market forces pushing down prices.

“There may be some hiccups in the exact pace and scale of E.V. sales if there are major policy changes, but I wouldn’t expect the E.V. market to flatline,” said Peter Slowik, who leads research on passenger cars at the International Council on Clean Transportation, a research organization. “Most automakers are committed to an all-electric future, and many are planning on a timeline that goes far beyond the next administration.”

Electric cars, sales of which have slowed in recent months, are still more expensive than gasoline models, costing an average of $55,252 in the United States in April, according to estimates by Kelley Blue Book. That is a decline of 9 percent from April 2023, but still about $6,700 more than the average for all vehicles.

But Mr. Slowik’s group estimates that cars and sport-utility vehicles capable of traveling 400 miles on a full battery will cost less than cars with internal combustion engines in 2030, even before taking into account government subsidies. (Pickup trucks, which require bigger batteries, will take a little longer, not reaching parity for 400-mile models until 2033.)

Those calculations do not take into account lower fuel and maintenance costs that strengthen the financial argument for electric vehicles. Electricity is almost always cheaper per mile than gasoline, and battery-powered vehicles don’t need oil changes, engine air filters or spark plugs. For people who drive a lot, electric cars may already be a better deal. At the same time, some automakers are offering strong discounts on E.V. models as an enticement for buyers.

While prices are clearly trending downward, there are risks. China supplies more than half of the lithium-ion batteries used in cars sold in the United States, according to Interact Analysis, a research firm. Those batteries will become more expensive because the Biden administration announced in May that it would raise tariffs on them to 25 percent from 7.5 percent.

Many companies are building battery factories in the United States and Canada , but most of these won’t produce enough batteries to replace China for several years.

Raw materials are another risk. The price of lithium and other materials required for batteries has plunged in the last 12 months, making electric cars cheaper. But commodity prices could soar again.

The recent slowdown in the growth of electric car sales has prompted Tesla, Ford and others to delay plans to expand manufacturing. But many analysts expect sales to pick up as a glut of models pushes down prices, and as the charging network grows. High prices and the fear of not being able to find a place to recharge are the two biggest reasons people hesitate to buy an electric vehicle, surveys show.

For many people, the car’s price is not the only expense to consider. People who live in apartments often depend on public charging plugs. Public charging, besides being less convenient, tends to be more costly than charging at home.

Still, the forces pushing prices down are powerful. Manufacturing costs are dropping as traditional carmakers, who were slow to sell electric vehicles, start to apply their decades of experience with mass production to the new technology.

Later this year, for example, General Motors will begin selling an electric version of its Chevrolet Equinox sport-utility vehicle that will have a range of more than 300 miles and sell for less than $30,000 after the $7,500 federal tax credit. And the company plans to sell an even cheaper car, a new Chevrolet Bolt, next year.

The Equinox and Bolt will be built on G.M.’s Ultium platform, a collection of components that can be used for a variety of vehicles including pickups and luxury Cadillacs. G.M., which has cut costs by using the same batteries and parts for different models, has said its electric vehicles will become profitable in the second half of this year.

Electric cars still cost more to manufacture than cars with internal combustion engines, said Prateek Biswas, an analyst at Wood Mackenzie, a research firm. But costs will come down as companies learn how to produce the cars more efficiently, Mr. Biswas said — for example, by eliminating rare minerals from electric motors or replacing copper wiring with aluminum.

At the same time, the cost to make a gasoline car is rising because of stricter emissions regulations. “At some point it will be easier to just move toward E.V.s,” Mr. Biswas said.

Competition is also intensifying. Toyota and other Japanese carmakers with a reputation for delivering reliable and affordable vehicles are belatedly offering electric vehicles. Honda plans to begin producing them at an Ohio factory next year.

There will be more than 100 fully electric models for sale in the United States by next year, according to Cars.com, an online sales platform, double the number available last year. “We’re at the point now where anybody that wants an E.V. for a price point can actually get an E.V.,” said Rebecca Lindland, senior director of industry data at Cars Commerce, which operates Cars.com.

Used car prices are arguably more important than prices of new cars. Most people buy used cars. A vibrant used market vastly increases the number of people who can consider an electric vehicle.

Models from Tesla, Nissan or G.M. have been on the road for three years or more, generating inventory for dealers as the original owners buy new ones. More than half of the used electric vehicles on the market sell for less than $30,000, according to Recurrent, a research firm that focuses on the used E.V. market.

Jesse Lore, owner of Green Wave Electric Vehicles in North Hampton, N.H., recently sold a used Chevy Bolt for $15,000. After applying a federal tax credit for used electric vehicles, the price was $11,000. Besides the lure of affordable prices, he noted, his customers like that electric vehicles are quieter than gasoline models, better for the environment, and faster because an electric motor generates instant torque.

“The car is more fun than whatever they’re driving now,” Mr. Lore said.

Jack Ewing writes about the auto industry with an emphasis on electric vehicles. More about Jack Ewing