ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2019
Automatically Appraising the Credibility of Vaccine-Related Web Pages Shared on Social Media: A Twitter Surveillance Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Analysis of the Anti-Vaccine Movement in Social Networks: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Pooled it
- Research Paradigm Mismatch: How Patients and Health Care Professionals Seek Health-Related Information Online.The Permanente journal · 2026Article
- Article
- Assessing the accuracy and explainability of using ChatGPT to evaluate the quality of health news.BMC public health · 2025Article
- The Role of Scientific Research in Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Discussions on Twitter: Social Network Analysis.JMIR infodemiology · 2024Article
- Mapping automatic social media information disorder. The role of bots and AI in spreading misleading information in society.PloS one · 2024Article
- Sexual and Gender-Diverse Individuals Face More Health Challenges during COVID-19: A Large-Scale Social Media Analysis with Natural Language Processing.Health data science · 2024Article
- Trust in information sources as a moderator of the impact of COVID-19 anxiety and exposure to information on conspiracy thinking and misinformation beliefs: a multilevel study.BMC psychology · 2023Article
- Twitter Sentiment About the US Federal Tobacco 21 Law: Mixed Methods Analysis.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Exploring 'quality' in science communication online: Expert thoughts on how to assess and promote science communication quality in digital media contexts.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2023Article
- Automatic detection of health misinformation: a systematic review.Journal of ambient intelligence and humanized computing · 2023Article
- Identifying factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine uptake in Finland - a qualitative study using social media data.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Rotavirus and the web: analysis of online conversations in Italy during 2020.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2022Article
- Article
- Collective Value Promotes the Willingness to Share Provaccination Messages on Social Media in China: Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- Article
- Polarization and trust in the evolution of vaccine discourse on Twitter during COVID-19.PloS one · 2022Observational
- Unravelling the truth: Examining the evidence for health-related claims made by naturopathic influencers on social media - a retrospective analysis.Health promotion perspectives · 2022Article
- Accuracy of health-related information regarding COVID-19 on Twitter during a global pandemic.World medical & health policy · 2021Article
- Assessing COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy, Confidence, and Public Engagement: A Global Social Listening Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTools used to appraise the credibility of health information are time-consuming to apply and require context-specific expertise, limiting their use for quickly identifying and mitigating the spread of misinformation as it emerges.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to estimate the proportion of vaccine-related Twitter posts linked to Web pages of low credibility and measure the potential reach of those posts.
methodsSampling from 143,003 unique vaccine-related Web pages shared on Twitter between January 2017 and March 2018, we used a 7-point checklist adapted from validated tools and guidelines to manually appraise the credibility of 474 Web pages. These were used to train several classifiers (random forests, support vector machines, and recurrent neural networks) using the text from a Web page to predict whether the information satisfies each of the 7 criteria. Estimating the credibility of all other Web pages, we used the follower network to estimate potential exposures relative to a credibility score defined by the 7-point checklist.
resultsThe best-performing classifiers were able to distinguish between low, medium, and high credibility with an accuracy of 78% and labeled low-credibility Web pages with a precision of over 96%. Across the set of unique Web pages, 11.86% (16,961 of 143,003) were estimated as low credibility and they generated 9.34% (1.64 billion of 17.6 billion) of potential exposures. The 100 most popular links to low credibility Web pages were each potentially seen by an estimated 2 million to 80 million Twitter users globally.
conclusionsThe results indicate that although a small minority of low-credibility Web pages reach a large audience, low-credibility Web pages tend to reach fewer users than other Web pages overall and are more commonly shared within certain subpopulations. An automatic credibility appraisal tool may be useful for finding communities of users at higher risk of exposure to low-credibility vaccine communications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.