SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2021
Prevalence of Health Misinformation on Social Media: Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 683 papers, 8 of them syntheses 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
683 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 1,343 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of source expertise on the persuasiveness and sharing of health information on social media: A systematic review.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Pooled it
- Older adults and online health misinformation: a systematic literature review.BMC psychology · 2026Pooled it
- [Social media in anesthesiology: a systematic review on typology as well as opportunities and risks].Die Anaesthesiologie · 2026Pooled it
- Exposure to health misinformation on social media across key health domains: a systematic review and meta-analysis of survey-based studies.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- Digital Interventions Targeting Healthy and Sustainable Eating Behavior: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Managing an infodemic in the global south: a systematic evidence synthesis from COVID-19 social listening reports.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- Development of a Conceptual Framework of Health Misinformation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review of Reviews.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2025Pooled it
- Physical Activity Misinformation on Social Media: Systematic Review.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Pooled it
- A cross-sectional study of vaccination behavior and willingness regarding respiratory disease-related vaccines among the elderly in Beijing, China.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Article
- Where do people obtain side effect information? Results from a census-matched U.S. national survey.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2026Article
- Social Media and HPV Vaccine Hesitancy: How Misinformation Affects Latino Parents.Journal of community health · 2026Article
- Quality evaluation of short videos about insomnia on TikTok and Bilibili: A cross-sectional study.Medicine · 2026Article
- Emerging risks of health optimisation: refractory nausea associated with peptide injections reported to contain retatrutide.BMJ case reports · 2026Article
- Safety-Filter Fallback on Consumer Health Questions During the Initial Claude Fable 5 Deployment: Observational Study.JMIR AI · 2026Article
- Assessing the believability of contraceptive misinformation among young Latinas (CREO): protocol for a discrete choice experiment.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Exploring Conversational Dynamics in Scientific and Pseudoscientific Health Communities on YouTube: Process Mining and Network Analysis Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- YouTube, TikTok, and Bilibili as sources of medical information on lumbar spinal stenosis: A cross-sectional content analysis study.Medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluating the reliability and quality of lupus nephritis educational content on TikTok and Bilibili: a cross-sectional content analysis.Lupus science & medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Susceptibility of cancer patients and caregivers to online cancer misinformation: a qualitative interview study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
623 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough at present there is broad agreement among researchers, health professionals, and policy makers on the need to control and combat health misinformation, the magnitude of this problem is still unknown. Consequently, it is fundamental to discover both the most prevalent health topics and the social media platforms from which these topics are initially framed and subsequently disseminated.
objectiveThis systematic review aimed to identify the main health misinformation topics and their prevalence on different social media platforms, focusing on methodological quality and the diverse solutions that are being implemented to address this public health concern.
methodsWe searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science for articles published in English before March 2019, with a focus on the study of health misinformation in social media. We defined health misinformation as a health-related claim that is based on anecdotal evidence, false, or misleading owing to the lack of existing scientific knowledge. We included (1) articles that focused on health misinformation in social media, including those in which the authors discussed the consequences or purposes of health misinformation and (2) studies that described empirical findings regarding the measurement of health misinformation on these platforms.
resultsA total of 69 studies were identified as eligible, and they covered a wide range of health topics and social media platforms. The topics were articulated around the following six principal categories: vaccines (32%), drugs or smoking (22%), noncommunicable diseases (19%), pandemics (10%), eating disorders (9%), and medical treatments (7%). Studies were mainly based on the following five methodological approaches: social network analysis (28%), evaluating content (26%), evaluating quality (24%), content/text analysis (16%), and sentiment analysis (6%). Health misinformation was most prevalent in studies related to smoking products and drugs such as opioids and marijuana. Posts with misinformation reached 87% in some studies. Health misinformation about vaccines was also very common (43%), with the human papilloma virus vaccine being the most affected. Health misinformation related to diets or pro-eating disorder arguments were moderate in comparison to the aforementioned topics (36%). Studies focused on diseases (ie, noncommunicable diseases and pandemics) also reported moderate misinformation rates (40%), especially in the case of cancer. Finally, the lowest levels of health misinformation were related to medical treatments (30%).
conclusionsThe prevalence of health misinformation was the highest on Twitter and on issues related to smoking products and drugs. However, misinformation on major public health issues, such as vaccines and diseases, was also high. Our study offers a comprehensive characterization of the dominant health misinformation topics and a comprehensive description of their prevalence on different social media platforms, which can guide future studies and help in the development of evidence-based digital policy action plans.
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.