Vol. 45 (5): 882-888, September – October, 2019
doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2019.05.04
DIFFERENCE OF OPINION
Rodrigo Donalisio Da Silva 1, 2, Jeffrey J. Leow 3, 4, Zainal Adwin Abidin 5, Edgar Linden-Castro 6, Edgar Ivan Bravo Castro 7, Leonardo Tortolero Blanco 8, Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh 9, Pablo Nicolas Contreras 10, Marcelo Langer Wroclawski 11, 12
1 Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver, CO, USA; 2 Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Denver Health Medical Center, Denver, CO, USA; 3 Department of Urology, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, LKC School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore; 4 Division of Urologic Surgery and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; 5 Department of Surgery, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia; 6 Centro Medico Puerta de Hierro, Zapopan Jalisco, Mexico; 7 Servicio de Urologia, Hospital Central Militar, Mexico; 8 Servicio de Urologia, Hospital Imed Levante, Alicante, Spain; 9 S. H. Ho Urology Centre, Department of Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; 10 Servicio de Urologia del Hospital Aleman. Buenos Aires, Argentina; 11 Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein. Sao Paulo, SP, Brasil; 12 Hospital Beneficencia Brasileira de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brasil
Keywords: Social Media; Urology; Review [Publication Type]
INTRODUCTION
Recently, Social Media (SoMe) has been one of the most important resources in communication.
Unsurprisingly, the medical and scientific community started to utilize the available online platforms in order to facilitate communication, promote scientific knowledge and initiate partnerships with other Institutions.
A 2018 survey of more than 5000 physicians found that 71% of physicians under the age of 40, 50% of those aged 40 to 49 years old, and more than 30% of physicians older than 60 years old regularly use SoMe (1). The American Urological Association survey in 2013 showed a high use of SoMe among its members (74%), of which fellows and residents consisted 86% and attendings 66% (2).
