Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-j4x9h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T09:29:29.322Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Public awareness of tetralogy of Fallot after Jimmy Kimmel Live! television episode: A cross-sectional analysis

Subject: Life Science and Biomedicine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2020

Benjamin Greiner*
Affiliation:
University of Texas Medical Branch, Department of Internal Medicine, Galveston, Texas
Abraham Lee
Affiliation:
University of Texas Medical Branch, Department of Internal Medicine, Galveston, Texas
Jake Checketts
Affiliation:
Oklahoma State University Medical Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tulsa, Oklahoma
Micah Hartwell
Affiliation:
Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma
*
*Corresponding author: Email: ben.greiner10@gmail.com, Phone: (409) 772-2653.

Abstract

Background

Persons with rare disorders, such as tetralogy of Fallot, often feel socially isolated due to poor public awareness of the disorder. On 1 May 2017, Jimmy Kimmel aired a segment on Jimmy Kimmel Live! highlighting the impact of tetralogy of Fallot on his son and how the public can learn more about the disorder.

Methods

We tracked public interest in tetralogy of Fallot using Google Trends and Twitter after the episode and constructed an autoregressive integrated moving average algorithm to calculate search volumes had Kimmel not aired the episode.

Results

Google searches and the number of Tweets for tetralogy of Fallot increased by 3063.27% and 4672.62%, respectively, above expected.

Conclusions

Our findings indicate that television talk shows may represent strong outlets for increasing public awareness of rare disorders.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Result type: Novel result
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Figure 1 shows the relative search interest, number of Tweets, and the forecasted trends for "Tetralogy of Fallot" by month. Jimmy Kimmel Live air date is indicated by the vertical dashed line.

Supplementary material: File

Greiner et al. supplementary material

Greiner et al. supplementary material

Download Greiner et al. supplementary material(File)
File 6.8 KB
Reviewing editor:  Marc Henrion Malawi-Liverpool-Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme, Statistical Support Unit, Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital, PO Box 30096, Blantyre, Malawi Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Clinical Sciences, Pembroke Place, Liverpool, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, L3 5QA
This article has been accepted because it is deemed to be scientifically sound, has the correct controls, has appropriate methodology and is statistically valid, and met required revisions.

Review 1: Public awareness of tetralogy of Fallot after Jimmy Kimmel Live! television episode: A cross-sectional analysis

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none

Comments

Comments to the Author: This is a somewhat minimal but original study. The question and conclusion are clear, the methods appear to be sound (although I cannot comment on the statistical methods) and the limitations have been discussed.1. More than just two sources (Google Trends and Twitter) should be considered for the study.2. Change "with" to "within" in "[…] highest peak volume with timeframe"?3. Split "Studies have found […]" into two sentences: "Studies have found […] conditions. However, this study […]".4. Reference 3 is incomplete.5. Revise spelling of "TheforecastPackage forR" in reference 5.6. A figure legend has to be provided7. Figure panels should be labeled "A" and "B".

Presentation

Overall score 4.3 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
5 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
4 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
4 out of 5

Context

Overall score 5 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
5 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
5 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 4.6 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
4 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
5 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
5 out of 5

Review 2: Public awareness of tetralogy of Fallot after Jimmy Kimmel Live! television episode: A cross-sectional analysis

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none

Comments

Comments to the Author: The manuscript reports analysis of google searches and Tweets about Tetralogy of Fallout, following it being discussed by Jimmy Kimmel on his TV show. The study reports a surge in interest in the disease following the airing of the show and concludes that TV talk shows are an effective way to raise awareness of rare diseases.The manuscript is well written and clear, the results and conclusion are supported by the data presented.

Presentation

Overall score 5 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
5 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
5 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
5 out of 5

Context

Overall score 5 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
5 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
5 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 5 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
5 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
5 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
5 out of 5