Table 2.

Example of best practices for reporting and analysis on Branford OA, Kamali P, Rohrich RJ, et al. #PlasticSurgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138(6):1354–65. Checklist items defined in Table 2.

Checklist item	Description on the paper	Page
1	The manuscript identifies itself implicitly as an analysis of social media data using the hashtag symbol in the title; however, it fails to specify analytical tools	1/1354
2	The manuscript reports background, objectives, data source (Twitter), description of the raw data, description of post analysis and conclusions. The abstract does not describe time frame, analytical engine, management tools or limitations.	1/1354
3	The article describes a round rationale of what is already known, particularly for the field of social media and plastic surgery.	1,2/1354–1355
4	The manuscript describes the objectives using a clear framework: Network: Twitter Object: Hashtag “Plastic-Surgery” (#Plastic-Surgery) and free text “plastic surgery” Analytical Engine: Not explicitly described, but appears to be Symplur Signals per citation in the references section. Comparison/Control: None apparent; this appears to be a descriptive netnographic analysis. Observation: Clearly described: hashtag-use description, subject matter, links to plastic surgery journals and self-promotion.	2–3/1355–1356
5	No description of protocol for data extraction.
6	The manuscript describes network source, type of data and filters.	2/1355
7	The manuscript describes characteristics of the data, surrogate markers, inferences about producers and users.	2/1355–1357
8	Description of data inclusion is clear.	2/1355
9	Description of data exclusion is clear (e.g., bots and non-English).	2/1355
10	Not described, but inferred from references and figures to be Symplur Signals. No details on data corruption or refinement method.
11	Not described.
12	Not described.
13	The manuscript describes platform, dates and data points clearly.	3/1356
14	Not described.
15	NOECO statement described previously, and there is an implicit assertion that it was appropriate for the analysis.
16	The manuscript contains a clear analysis about the data supporting the original study aim (description of the hashtag use).	3–11/1356–1364
17	The manuscript describes the main findings that answer the NOECO question.	3–11/1356–1364
18	No clear description on limitations.
19	The manuscript provides a general interpretation of the data source, set and analysis.	11–12/1364–1365
20	The manuscript describes clear disclosures, including support and conflicts of interest.	1/1354