Background— Medical journals use social media to distribute the findings of published articles. Whether social media exposure to original articles improves article impact metrics is uncertain. Methods and Results— Articles were randomized to receive targeted social media exposure from Circulation , including postings on the journal’s Facebook and Twitter feeds. The primary end point was 30-day article page views. We conducted an intention-to-treat analysis comparing article page views by the Wilcoxon Rank sum test between articles randomized to social media as compared with those in the control group, which received no social media from Circulation . Prespecified subgroups included article type (population/clinical/basic), US versus non-US corresponding author, and whether the article received an editorial. Overall, 243 articles were randomized: 121 in the social media arm and 122 in the control arm. There was no difference in median 30-day page views (409 [social media] versus 392 [control], P =0.80). No differences were observed by article type (clinical, population, or basic science; P =0.19), whether an article had an editorial ( P =0.87), or whether the corresponding author was from the United States ( P =0.73). Conclusions— A social media strategy for a cardiovascular journal did not increase the number of times an article was viewed. Further research is necessary to understand and quantify the ways in which social media can increase the impact of published cardiovascular research.

BackgroundA prior randomized controlled trial of social media exposure at Circulation determined that social media did not increase 30‐day page views. Whether insufficient social media intensity contributed to these results is uncertain.Methods and ResultsOriginal article manuscripts were randomized to social media exposure compared with no social media exposure (control) at Circulation beginning in January 2015. Social media exposure consisted of Facebook and Twitter posts on the journal's accounts. To increase social media intensity, a larger base of followers was built using advertising and organic growth, and posts were presented in triplicate and boosted on Facebook and retweeted on Twitter. The primary outcome was 30‐day page views. Stopping rules were established at the point that 50% of the manuscripts were randomized and had 30‐day follow‐up to compare groups on 30‐day page views. The trial was stopped for futility on September 26, 2015. Overall, 74 manuscripts were randomized to receive social media exposure, and 78 manuscripts were randomized to the control arm. The intervention and control arms were similar based on article type (P=0.85), geographic location of the corresponding author (P=0.33), and whether the manuscript had an editorial (P=0.80). Median number of 30‐day page views was 499.5 in the social media arm and 450.5 in the control arm; there was no evidence of a treatment effect (P=0.38). There were no statistically significant interactions of treatment by manuscript type (P=0.86), by corresponding author (P=0.35), by trimester of publication date (P=0.34), or by editorial status (P=0.79).ConclusionsA more intensive social media strategy did not result in increased 30‐day page views of original research.

No abstract