Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34103772›Full record

ArticleApplied geography (Sevenoaks, England)2021

Geospatial analysis of misinformation in COVID-19 related tweets.

Amir Masoud Forati, Rina Ghose

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied geography (Sevenoaks, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
16.3field-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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Amir Masoud ForatiDepartment of Geography, University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI 5321, USA.
Rina GhoseDepartment of Geography, University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI 5321, USA.
University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

COVID-19 has emerged as a global pandemic caused by its highly transmissible nature during the incubation period. In the absence of vaccination, containment is seen as the best strategy to stop virus diffusion. However, public awareness has been adversely affected by discourses in social media that have downplayed the severity of the virus and disseminated false information. This article investigates COVID-19 related Twitter activity in May and June 2020 to examine the origin and nature of misinformation and its relationship with the COVID-19 incidence rate at the state and county level. A geodatabase of all geotagged COVID-19 related tweets was compiled. Multiscale Geographically Weighted Regression was employed to examine the association between social media activity and the spatial variability of disease incidence. Findings suggest that MGWR could explain 80% of the COVID-19 incidence rate variations indicating a strong spatial relationship between social media activity and spread of the Covid-19 virus. Discourse analysis was conducted on tweets to index tweets downplaying the pandemic or disseminating misinformation. Findings indicate that sites of Twitter misinformation showed more resistance to pandemic management measures in May and June 2020 later experienced a rise in the number of cases in July.

Indexed as

CoronavirusCOVID-19Discourse analysisDownplayGISMGWRMisinformationSocial media activitySpatial analysis

Identifiers

PMID34103772
PMCPMC8176902
OpenAlexW3166174067

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.