Article Text

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
International Gynaecological Cancer Society (IGCS) 2020 Annual Global Meeting: Twitter activity analysis
  1. Geetu Prakash Bhandoria1,
  2. Navya Nair2,
  3. Sadie Esme Fleur Jones3,
  4. Ane Gerda Eriksson4,
  5. Heng-Cheng Hsu5,
  6. Florencia Noll6 and
  7. Wasim Ahmed7
  8. International Gynecological Cancer Society
  1. 1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Command Hospital Kolkata, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
  2. 2Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
  3. 3Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK
  4. 4Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo, Norway
  5. 5Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Taiwan University Hospital Hsin-Chu Branch, Hsinchu, Taiwan
  6. 6Department of Gynecologic Oncology & Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires & Sanatorio Allende Cerro, Buenos Aires & Córdoba, Argentina
  7. 7Newcastle University, Business School, Newcastle, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Geetu Prakash Bhandoria, Obstetrics & Gynecology, Command Hospital Kolkata, Kolkata, West Bengal, India; doctor_071277{at}


Objectives Twitter is the most frequently used social media platform by healthcare practitioners, at medical conferences. This study aimed to analyze Twitter conversations during the virtual International Gynecological Cancer Society 2020 conference to understand the interactions between Twitter users related to the conference.

Methods Tweets using the hashtag ‘#IGCS2020’ were searched using the Twitter Search Application Programming Interface (API) during the period 10–13 September 2020. NodeXL Pro was used to retrieve data. The Clauset-Newman-Moore cluster algorithm clustered users into different groups or ‘clusters’ based on how users interacted.

Results There were 2009 registrants for the virtual IGCS 2020 conference. The total number of users within the network was 168, and there were 880 edges connecting users. Five types of edges were identified as follows: ‘replies to’ (n=18), ‘mentions’ (n=221), ‘mentions in retweets’ (n=375), retweets (n=198), and tweets (n=68). The most influential account was that of the IGCS account itself (@IGCSociety). The overall network shape resembled a community where distinct groups formed within the network. Our current analyses demonstrated that less than 10% of the total members interacted on Twitter.

Conclusion This study identified the most influential Twitter users within the ‘#IGCS2020’ community. he results also confirmed the community network shape of the #IGCS2020 hashtag and found that the most frequent co-related words were ‘ovarian’ and ‘cancer’ (n=39).

  • gynecology
  • genital neoplasms
  • female

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. Data will be provided, on reasonable request.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. Data will be provided, on reasonable request.

View Full Text


  • Twitter @Bhandoria, @drsadiejones, @HsuMd, @FlorenciaNoll

  • Collaborators International Gynecological Cancer Society.

  • Contributors Study planning, conduct, concept and design: GPB. Data acquisition: WA. Statistical analysis: WA. Manuscript preparation: GPB, HCH, NN, SEFJ, FN, AGE, WA. Manuscript editing and revisions: All authors. All authors read and approved the final and revised manuscript.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests AGE is a Member of the Education Council of IGCS and social media editor of the International Journal of Gynecological Cancer.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.