Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29172967›Full record

ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2018

A comprehensive analysis of Italian web pages mentioning squalene-based influenza vaccine adjuvants reveals a high prevalence of misinformation.

Donatella Panatto, Daniela Amicizia, Lucia Arata, Piero Luigi Lai, Roberto Gasparini

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Misinformation and public opinion of science and health: Approaches, findings, and future directions.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021
    Review
  11. [Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Donatella Panattoa Department of Health Sciences , University of Genoa , Genoa , Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2677-0551
Daniela Amiciziaa Department of Health Sciences , University of Genoa , Genoa , Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9707-5214
Lucia Arataa Department of Health Sciences , University of Genoa , Genoa , Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8708-2955
Piero Luigi Laia Department of Health Sciences , University of Genoa , Genoa , Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3063-4154
Roberto Gasparinia Department of Health Sciences , University of Genoa , Genoa , Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1012-6913
University of Genoa · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Squalene-based adjuvants have been included in influenza vaccines since 1997. Despite several advantages of adjuvanted seasonal and pandemic influenza vaccines, laypeople's perception of such formulations may be hesitant or even negative under certain circumstances. Moreover, in Italian, the term "squalene" has the same root as such common words as "shark" (squalo), "squalid" and "squalidness" that tend to have negative connotations. This study aimed to quantitatively and qualitatively analyze a representative sample of Italian web pages mentioning squalene-based adjuvants used in influenza vaccines. Every effort was made to limit the subjectivity of judgments. Eighty-four unique web pages were assessed. A high prevalence (47.6%) of pages with negative or ambiguous attitudes toward squalene-based adjuvants was established. Compared with web pages reporting balanced information on squalene-based adjuvants, those categorized as negative/ambiguous had significantly lower odds of belonging to a professional institution [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.12, p = .004], and significantly higher odds of containing pictures (aOR = 1.91, p = .034) and being more readable (aOR = 1.34, p = .006). Some differences in wording between positive/neutral and negative/ambiguous web pages were also observed. The most common scientifically unsound claims concerned safety issues and, in particular, claims linking squalene-based adjuvants to the Gulf War Syndrome and autoimmune disorders. Italian users searching the web for information on vaccine adjuvants have a high likelihood of finding unbalanced and misleading material. Information provided by institutional websites should be not only evidence-based but also carefully targeted towards laypeople. Conversely, authors writing for non-institutional websites should avoid sensationalism and provide their readers with more balanced information.

Indexed as

Adjuvants, ImmunologicAntibodies, ViralEvaluation Studies as TopicHumansInfluenza, HumanInfluenza VaccinesInternetItalyPandemicsPrevalenceSqualeneAdjuvants, ImmunologicAntibodies, ViralInfluenza VaccinesSqualeneinfluenzaInfluenza vaccinesinternetmisinformationsqualenesqualene-based adjuvantsvaccine adjuvants

Identifiers

PMID29172967
PMCPMC5893210
OpenAlexW2770350952

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.