Academic tweeting in #ObGyn. Where do we stand?

Objective To describe the scenario of academic tweeting and utilization of Twitter by editorial board members of the leading journal in obstetrics and gynecology. Methods The Twitter presence of an editorial board members of obstetrics and gynecology journal with an impact factor greater than 4 was determined. Details of their Twitter activity, year of graduation from medical school and gender were analyzed. Median SparkScore™, an online influence measure, of journals was compared to the highest impact factor journals in medicine (New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, The British Medical Journal and Journal of the American Medical Association). Results In the six highest impact factor journals in obstetrics and gynecology, 92 of 240 (38.3%) editorial board members had an active Twitter account. The Twitter presence of editorial members of Obstetrics and Gynecology was statistically less when compared to all other journals (P < 0.01). The median number of tweets in the last 24 h and 7 days were 0. Median SparkScore™ for the highest impact factor obstetrics and gynecology journals (24) were lower compared to the highest impact journals in medicine (66) (P = 0.03). Conclusion Editorial board members of the six highest impact factor journals in obstetrics and gynecology are not capitalizing on the dynamic nature of Twitter and its instant convenient access from our smartphones to further academia, when compared to specialties in medicine. There is a need for increased adoption of Twitter among physician leaders in the specialty.