El aumento de vídeos en directo publicados en redes sociales durante congresos de urología: es hora de reflexionar sobre sus ventajas y daños potenciales. Un estudio de ESUT-YAU / Live videos shared on social media during urological conferences are increasing: Time to reflect on advantages and potential harms. An ESUT-YAU study

Introducción: Las redes sociales (RRSS) ofrecen excelentes oportunidades para la difusión del conocimiento científico y su aplicación en el ámbito de la urología es cada vez mayor. Sin embargo, existe controversia alrededor de este tema. Los vídeos en directo compartidos a través de las plataformas de las RRSS ofrecen muchas ventajas y desventajas; existen riesgos potenciales con respecto a la confidencialidad, infracción de derechos de autor, entre otros. Nuestro objetivo fue evaluar el papel de los vídeos compartidos en RRSS durante los congresos de urología. Materiales y métodos: Desde enero de 2016 hasta junio de 2018, se llevó a cabo un estudio exhaustivo de los vídeos compartidos en RRSS durante el Congreso de la Asociación Europea de Urología. Se utilizaron las herramientas online Symplur (Symplur.com), Twitter, Periscope y YouTube para la recopilación de datos. Se analizaron las siguientes variables: el número de vídeos, el tiempo de retransmisión y las visualizaciones de cada uno. Los vídeos se clasificaron como en directo o pregrabados y como científicos o no científicos. Se utilizó SPSS V22.0 para el procesamiento de datos. Resultados: Identificamos 108 vídeos compartidos en RRSS, 292,42 minutos de retransmisión, 67732 visualizaciones. De estos 79 (73%) eran vídeos en directo, de los cuales 78 (72%) se consideraron científicos y 30 (28%) no científicos. Durante los años del estudio (2016-2018) se observó un aumento en el tiempo de retransmisión (p = 0,031), el número de vídeos, visualizaciones (p = 0,018) y vídeos en directo (p = 0,019) durante el congreso anual de la Asociación Europea de Urología. Conclusiones: La publicación de vídeos de congresos urológicos en RRSS está en constante aumento. Estos vídeos proporcionan ventajas para la comunicación, la divulgación científica y amplían el alcance de los congresos. Sin embargo, existe un riesgo potencial al compartir información en tiempo real que podría no estar en línea con las recomendaciones para el uso apropiado de las redes sociales

Introduction: Social Media (SoMe) offers excellent opportunities for scientific knowledge dissemination and its use has been extended in urology. However, there is controversy about its use. Live videos shared trough SoMe platforms offer many advantages, but at the same time disadvantages and potential risks including confidentiality, copyright infringement, among others. We aimed to assess the activity of shared videos on SoMe during urological conferences. Materials and methods: A comprehensive study of videos shared on SoMe during European Association of Urology congress was carried out from January 2016 to June 2018. The online tools Symplur (Symplur.com), Twitter, Periscope and YouTube were searched to collect data. Number of videos, transmission time and views were analyzed. Videos were classified as live or pre-recorded and as scientific or non-scientific. SPSS V22.0 was used to process data. Results: We identified 108 videos shared on SoMe, 292.42minutes of transmission, 67732 views. 79 of 108 (73%) were live streaming videos, 78 (72%) of which were considered scientific vs. 30 (28%) non-scientific. An increase was observed trough the years of study (2016-2018) in transmission time (p = .031) number of videos, views (p = .018) and live videos (p = .019) during the annual congress of the European Association of Urology. Conclusions: Shared videos on SoMe from urological conferences are increasing. These provide advantages for communication, scientific dissemination and expand the scope of conferences. However, there is potential risk of sharing information in real time; that could not be in line with the recommendations for appropriate use of social networks

Live videos shared on social media during urological conferences are increasing: Time to reflect on advantages and potential harms. An ESUT-YAU study. / El aumento de vídeos en directo publicados en redes sociales durante congresos de urología: es hora de reflexionar sobre sus ventajas y daños potenciales. Un estudio de ESUT-YAU.

INTRODUCTION: Social Media (SoMe) offers excellent opportunities for scientific knowledge dissemination and its use has been extended in urology. However, there is controversy about its use. Live videos shared trough SoMe platforms offer many advantages, but at the same time disadvantages and potential risks including confidentiality, copyright infringement, among others. We aimed to assess the activity of shared videos on SoMe during urological conferences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive study of videos shared on SoMe during European Association of Urology congress was carried out from January 2016 to June 2018. The online tools Symplur (Symplur.com), Twitter, Periscope and YouTube were searched to collect data. Number of videos, transmission time and views were analyzed. Videos were classified as live or pre-recorded and as scientific or non-scientific. SPSS V22.0 was used to process data. RESULTS: We identified 108 videos shared on SoMe, 292.42minutes of transmission, 67732 views. 79 of 108 (73%) were live streaming videos, 78 (72%) of which were considered scientific vs. 30 (28%) non-scientific. An increase was observed trough the years of study (2016-2018) in transmission time (p=.031) number of videos, views (p=.018) and live videos (p=.019) during the annual congress of the European Association of Urology. CONCLUSIONS: Shared videos on SoMe from urological conferences are increasing. These provide advantages for communication, scientific dissemination and expand the scope of conferences. However, there is potential risk of sharing information in real time; that could not be in line with the recommendations for appropriate use of social networks.

Las redes sociales científicas, una nueva forma de ampliar el conocimiento. ¿Qué necesitan saber los urólogos? / Scientific social media, a new way to expand knowledge. What do urologists need to know?

Introducción y objetivos: Hoy en día es casi imposible desvincular la mayoría de las fuentes de conocimiento e información modernos a las tecnologías 2.0. El objetivo de este trabajo es realizar una revisión de las redes sociales (RRSS) científicas (RRSS-C) y el papel que estas desempeñan en la urología actual. Material y métodos: Se realizó una búsqueda bibliográfica en la base de datos PubMed hasta julio de 2018. Se utilizaron los siguientes términos de búsqueda: "Redes sociales", "Urología", "Ciencia", "Investigación". Resultados: Las RRSS ofrecen servicios integrados y herramientas sencillas para la comunicación, la colaboración y la participación. Las instancias prototípicas populares de las redes son Facebook, Twitter o Instagram. Las RRSS no solo han afectado la vida privada y la comunicación personal, sino que también han tenido un alto impacto en el mundo empresarial y la ciencia. En este sentido, el término RRSS-C describe el uso de las plataformas de tecnologías 2.0 en el trabajo científico. Existen diferentes modelos de RRSS-C. Están los identificadores de autor, que son identificadores únicos que permiten gestionar la identidad profesional de cada investigador, distinguiéndolos de otros investigadores y asociando inequívocamente su trabajo. Los perfiles de autor nos ayudan a gestionar nuestro propio perfil académico y a controlar la información disponible sobre nosotros. De esta manera nos aseguramos de que otros investigadores encuentren información correcta y completa sobre nuestra carrera e investigación. Algunos ejemplos de RRSS-C son: ResearchGate, ORCID y Mendeley, entre otros. Conclusiones: Las RRSS-C no solo deben proporcionar información y servicios importantes para la literatura y búsqueda de esta, sino que también podrían ser un catalizador importante para promover servicios apropiados y útiles en el contexto de un nuevo concepto de ciencia, la ciencia 2.0

Introduction and aims: Nowadays, it is almost impossible not to link most of the sources of modern knowledge to information of 2.0 technologies. The aim of this review is to analyse the role of scientific social media (Sc-SoMe) and its potential applications in urology. Material and methods: A literature search was carried out using the PubMed database until July 2018. The research was performed with the following terms: "Social Media", "urology", "science", "research". Results: Social media (SoMe) offers integrated services and easy tools for communication, collaboration and participation. Popular prototypical platforms of SoMe are Facebook, Twitter or Instagram. SoMe not only influence private life and personal communication, but these also affect business and science sectors. In this sense, the term Sc-SoMe describes the impact and usage of 2.0 technologies platforms on scientific work. There are different models of Sc-SoMe such as author identifiers which are unique identifiers that allow managing the professional identity of each researcher, distinguishing them from other researchers and unequivocally associating their work and author profiles. This helps us manage our own academic profile and control the information available about us and ensure that other researchers are finding correct and complete information about our research and career. Examples of Sc-SoMe are: ResearchGate, ORCID, Mendeley among others. Conclusions: Sc-SoMe should not only provide important information and services for literature and literature search. These could also be an important catalyst for promoting appropriate and helpful services in the context of a new concept of science, the science 2.0

Scientific social media, a new way to expand knowledge. What do urologists need to know? / Las redes sociales científicas, una nueva forma de ampliar el conocimiento. ¿Qué necesitan saber los urólogos?

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Nowadays, it is almost impossible not to link most of the sources of modern knowledge to information of 2.0 technologies. The aim of this review is to analyse the role of scientific social media (Sc-SoMe) and its potential applications in urology. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A literature search was carried out using the PubMed database until July 2018. The research was performed with the following terms: "Social Media", "urology", "science", "research". RESULTS: Social media (SoMe) offers integrated services and easy tools for communication, collaboration and participation. Popular prototypical platforms of SoMe are Facebook, Twitter or Instagram. SoMe not only influence private life and personal communication, but these also affect business and science sectors. In this sense, the term Sc-SoMe describes the impact and usage of 2.0 technologies platforms on scientific work. There are different models of Sc-SoMe such as author identifiers which are unique identifiers that allow managing the professional identity of each researcher, distinguishing them from other researchers and unequivocally associating their work and author profiles. This helps us manage our own academic profile and control the information available about us and ensure that other researchers are finding correct and complete information about our research and career. Examples of Sc-SoMe are: ResearchGate, ORCID, Mendeley among others. CONCLUSIONS: Sc-SoMe should not only provide important information and services for literature and literature search. These could also be an important catalyst for promoting appropriate and helpful services in the context of a new concept of science, the science 2.0.