Toward Using Twitter Data to Monitor COVID-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnancy: Proof-of-Concept Study of Cohort Identification

  1. Ari Z Klein
  2. Karen O'Connor
  3. Graciela Gonzalez-Hernandez

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

COVID-19 during pregnancy is associated with an increased risk of maternal death, intensive care unit admission, and preterm birth; however, many people who are pregnant refuse to receive COVID-19 vaccination because of a lack of safety data.

Objective

The objective of this preliminary study was to assess whether Twitter data could be used to identify a cohort for epidemiologic studies of COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy. Specifically, we examined whether it is possible to identify users who have reported (1) that they received COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy or the periconception period, and (2) their pregnancy outcomes.

Methods

We developed regular expressions to search for reports of COVID-19 vaccination in a large collection of tweets posted through the beginning of July 2021 by users who have announced their pregnancy on Twitter. To help determine if users were vaccinated during pregnancy, we drew upon a natural language processing (NLP) tool that estimates the timeframe of the prenatal period. For users who posted tweets with a timestamp indicating they were vaccinated during pregnancy, we drew upon additional NLP tools to help identify tweets that reported their pregnancy outcomes.

Results

We manually verified the content of tweets detected automatically, identifying 150 users who reported on Twitter that they received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy or the periconception period. We manually verified at least one reported outcome for 45 of the 60 (75%) completed pregnancies.

Conclusions

Given the limited availability of data on COVID-19 vaccine safety in pregnancy, Twitter can be a complementary resource for potentially increasing the acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination in pregnant populations. The results of this preliminary study justify the development of scalable methods to identify a larger cohort for epidemiologic studies.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.2196/33792
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.09.15.21263653: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.2196/preprints.33792
  4. Version published to 10.1101/2021.09.15.21263653v1 on medRxiv