Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32118519›Full record

ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2020

Twitter as a sentinel tool to monitor public opinion on vaccination: an opinion mining analysis from September 2016 to August 2017 in Italy.

Lara Tavoschi, Filippo Quattrone, Eleonora D'Andrea, Pietro Ducange, Marco Vabanesi, Francesco Marcelloni, Pier Luigi Lopalco

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
13.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 133 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Italy's NITAG shift: implications for public trust in vaccines.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Realfood and Cancer: Analysis of the Reliability and Quality of YouTube Content.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lara TavoschiDepartment of Translational Research and of New Surgical and Medical Technologies, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2217-4664
Filippo QuattroneDepartment of Translational Research and of New Surgical and Medical Technologies, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7721-9559
Eleonora D'AndreaDipartimento di Ingegneria dell'Informazione, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Pietro DucangeDipartimento di Ingegneria dell'Informazione, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4510-1350
Marco VabanesiDepartment of Neurology, San Raffaele Scientific Institute and University, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8283-7079
Francesco MarcelloniDipartimento di Ingegneria dell'Informazione, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5895-876X
Pier Luigi LopalcoDepartment of Translational Research and of New Surgical and Medical Technologies, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3181-8054
University of Pisa · ITSan Raffaele University of Rome · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Social media have become a common way for people to express their personal viewpoints, including sentiments about health topics. We present the results of an opinion mining analysis on vaccination performed on Twitter from September 2016 to August 2017 in Italy. Vaccine-related tweets were automatically classified as against, in favor or neutral in respect of the vaccination topic by means of supervised machine-learning techniques. During this period, we found an increasing trend in the number of tweets on this topic. According to the overall analysis by category, 60% of tweets were classified as neutral, 23% against vaccination, and 17% in favor of vaccination. Vaccine-related events appeared able to influence the number and the opinion polarity of tweets. In particular, the approval of the decree introducing mandatory immunization for selected childhood diseases produced a prominent effect in the social discussion in terms of number of tweets. Opinion mining analysis based on Twitter showed to be a potentially useful and timely sentinel system to assess the orientation of public opinion toward vaccination and, in future, it may effectively contribute to the development of appropriate communication and information strategies.

Indexed as

Social MediaVaccinesChildHumansItalyPublic OpinionVaccinationVaccinesOpinion miningsentiment analysissocial mediaTwittervaccinationvaccine hesitancy

Identifiers

PMID32118519
PMCPMC7227677
OpenAlexW3008985999

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.