International urology journal club via twitter: 12-month experience

Background Online journal clubs have increasingly been utilised to overcome the limitations of the traditional journal club. However, to date, no reported online journal club is available for international participation. Objective To present a 12-mo experience from the International Urology Journal Club, the world's first international journal club using Twitter, an online micro-blogging platform, and to demonstrate the viability and sustainability of such a journal club. Design, setting, and participants #urojc is an asynchronous 48-h monthly journal club moderated by the Twitter account @iurojc. The open invitation discussions focussed on papers typically published within the previous 2-4 wk. Data were obtained via third-party Twitter analysis services. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Outcomes analysed included number of total and new users, number of tweets, and qualitative analysis of the relevance of tweets. Analysis was undertaken using GraphPad software, Microsoft Excel, and thematic qualitative analysis. Results and limitations The first 12 mo saw a total of 189 unique users representing 19 countries and 6 continents. There was a mean of 39 monthly participants that included 14 first-time participants per month. The mean number of tweets per month was 195 of which 62% represented original tweets directly related to the topic of discussion and 22% represented retweets of original posts. A mean of 130 832 impressions, or reach, were created per month. The @iurojc moderator account has accumulated >1000 followers. The study is limited by potentially incomplete data extracted by third-party Twitter analysers. Conclusions Social media provides a potential for enormous international communication that has not been possible in the past. We believe the pioneering #urojc is both viable and sustainable. There is unlimited scope for journal clubs in other fields to follow the example of #urojc and utilise online portals to revitalise the traditional journal club while fostering international relationships

Evaluating the effectiveness of an online journal club: experience from the International Urology Journal Club

The International Urology Journal Club attracts global participation; however, its effectiveness as an educational resource is undetermined.To evaluate the effectiveness of the international Twitter-based urology journal club (#urojc) using Kirkpatrick's evaluation model and to quantify the development of #urojc into a robust educational platform.A 13-item survey was sent to 3127 followers of #urojc. Twitter metrics including number of users, tweets, and impressions during 24 mo of operation were obtained via a third-party service "Symplur." Tweets were qualitatively analyzed to assess for relevance. Kirkpatrick's four-level evaluation model (reaction, learning, behavior, and results) was applied to analyze impact and effectiveness.Survey participation rate was 48% (after accounting for spam and inactive accounts). The reaction (Kirkpatrick level 1) to #urojc was overwhelmingly positive. Consultant urologists were the most active participants while trainees reported highest educational value. As much as 45% of junior consultant urologists and trainees reported a change in practice as a result of #urojc participation. The number of unique users of #urojc almost doubled from yr 1 to 2. The number of tweets per month and author participation increased from yr 1 to 2. The proportion of content-relevant tweets remained stably high at approximately 60%. This study was unable to document any impact on knowledge, behavior, or outcomes of #urojc (Kirkpatrick levels 2-4). Silent observers who do not follow #urojc were not captured.To our knowledge, this is the first time Kirkpatrick's evaluation model has been applied to a journal club. The reaction to #urojc among survey responders is positive with change in practice also reported. It appears that #urojc achieves level 1 of Kirkpatrick's evaluation model. Further investigation is required for levels 2-4. Twitter-based journal clubs draw robust global participation and have inspired journal clubs in other specialties.This report highlights the importance of the International Urology Journal Club as a potential educational resource of consultant urologists and trainees alike. Global participation was a major advantage of this platform. This journal club has inspired other medical specialties to follow suit

Prostate Cancer Registries: Current Status and Future Directions.

ContextDisease-specific registries that enroll a considerable number of patients play a major role in prostate cancer (PCa) research.ObjectiveTo evaluate available registries, describe their strengths and limitations, and discuss the potential future role of PCa registries in outcomes research.Evidence acquisitionWe performed a literature review of the Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The search strategy included the terms prostate cancer, outcomes, statistical approaches, population-based cohorts, registries of outcomes, and epidemiological studies, alone or in combination. We limited our search to studies published between January 2005 and January 2015.Evidence synthesisSeveral population-based and prospective disease-specific registries are currently available for prostate cancer. Studies performed using these data sources provide important information on incidence and mortality, disease characteristics at presentation, risk factors, trends in utilization of health care services, disparities in access to treatment, quality of care, long-term oncologic and health-related quality of life outcomes, and costs associated with management of the disease. Although data from these registries have some limitations, statistical methods are available that can address certain biases and increase the internal and external validity of such analyses. In the future, improvements in data quality, collection of tissue samples, and the availability of data feedback to health care providers will increase the relevance of studies built on population-based and disease-specific registries.ConclusionsThe strengths and limitations of PCa registries should be carefully considered when planning studies using these databases. Although randomized controlled trials still provide the highest level of evidence, large registries play an important and growing role in advancing PCa research and care.Patient summarySeveral population-based and prospective disease-specific registries for prostate cancer are currently available. Analyses of data from these registries yield information that is clinically relevant for the management of patients with prostate cancer

Prostate Cancer Registries: Current Status and Future Directions.

ContextDisease-specific registries that enroll a considerable number of patients play a major role in prostate cancer (PCa) research.ObjectiveTo evaluate available registries, describe their strengths and limitations, and discuss the potential future role of PCa registries in outcomes research.Evidence acquisitionWe performed a literature review of the Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The search strategy included the terms prostate cancer, outcomes, statistical approaches, population-based cohorts, registries of outcomes, and epidemiological studies, alone or in combination. We limited our search to studies published between January 2005 and January 2015.Evidence synthesisSeveral population-based and prospective disease-specific registries are currently available for prostate cancer. Studies performed using these data sources provide important information on incidence and mortality, disease characteristics at presentation, risk factors, trends in utilization of health care services, disparities in access to treatment, quality of care, long-term oncologic and health-related quality of life outcomes, and costs associated with management of the disease. Although data from these registries have some limitations, statistical methods are available that can address certain biases and increase the internal and external validity of such analyses. In the future, improvements in data quality, collection of tissue samples, and the availability of data feedback to health care providers will increase the relevance of studies built on population-based and disease-specific registries.ConclusionsThe strengths and limitations of PCa registries should be carefully considered when planning studies using these databases. Although randomized controlled trials still provide the highest level of evidence, large registries play an important and growing role in advancing PCa research and care.Patient summarySeveral population-based and prospective disease-specific registries for prostate cancer are currently available. Analyses of data from these registries yield information that is clinically relevant for the management of patients with prostate cancer