Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33204475›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2020

Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world.

Jon Roozenbeek, Claudia R Schneider, Sarah Dryhurst, John Kerr, Alexandra L J Freeman, Gabriel Recchia, Anne Marthe van der Bles, Sander van der Linden

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 507 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
507citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

507 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Do Professions Remain Analytically Distinct From Non-Professional Occupations?Canadian review of sociology = Revue canadienne de sociologie · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

447 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors.

Jon RoozenbeekDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing St., CB2 3EB Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8150-9305
Claudia R SchneiderDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing St., CB2 3EB Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6612-5186
Sarah DryhurstWinton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication, University of Cambridge, Wilberforce Road, CB3 0WA Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7772-8492
John KerrDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing St., CB2 3EB Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6606-5507
Alexandra L J FreemanWinton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication, University of Cambridge, Wilberforce Road, CB3 0WA Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4115-161X
Gabriel RecchiaWinton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication, University of Cambridge, Wilberforce Road, CB3 0WA Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0210-8635
Anne Marthe van der BlesDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing St., CB2 3EB Cambridge, UK.
Sander van der LindenDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing St., CB2 3EB Cambridge, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Misinformation about COVID-19 is a major threat to public health. Using five national samples from the UK (

Indexed as

COVID-19fake newsmisinformationvaccine hesitancy

Identifiers

PMID33204475
PMCPMC7657933

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.