Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34411172›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Quantifying the effect of Wakefield et al. (1998) on skepticism about MMR vaccine safety in the U.S.

Matthew Motta, Dominik Stecula

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Measles seroprevalence by birth cohort across the lifespan: a population-based, cross-sectional serosurvey in British Columbia, Canada.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2025
    Article
  7. Retractions in Otolaryngology Publications.JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Scrutinizing the COVID-19 vaccine safety debate.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Matthew MottaDepartment of Political Science, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-2824-6833
Dominik SteculaDepartment of Political Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-6724-7559
Colorado State University · USOklahoma State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEfforts to trace the rise of childhood vaccine safety concerns in the US often suggest Andrew Wakefield and colleagues' retracted 1998 Lancet study (AW98)-which alleged that the MMR vaccine can cause children to develop autism-as a primary cause of US vaccine skepticism. However, a lack of public opinion data on MMR safety collected before/after AW98's publication obscures whether anecdotal accounts are indicative of a potentially-causal effect.

methodsWe address this problem using a regression discontinuity framework to study change in monthly MMR injury claims (N = 74,850; from 1990-2019) from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) to proxy concern about vaccine safety. Additionally, we suggest a potential mechanism for the effect of AW98 on vaccine skepticism, via automated sentiment analyses of MMR-related news stories (N = 674; from 1996-2000) in major television and newspaper outlets.

resultsAW98 led to an immediate increase of about 70 MMR injury claims cases per month, averaging across six estimation strategies (meta-analytic effect = 70.44 [52.19, 88.75], p < 0.01). Preliminary evidence suggests that the volume of negative media attention to MMR increased in the weeks following AW98's publication, across four estimation strategies (meta-analytic effect = 9.59% [3.66, 15.51], p < 0.01).

conclusionsVaccine skepticism increased following the publication of AW98, which was potentially made possible by increased negative media coverage of MMR. SIGNIFICANCE: Childhood vaccine skepticism presents an important challenge to widespread vaccine uptake, and undermines support for pro-vaccine health policies. In addition to advancing our understanding of the previously-obscured origins of US vaccine skepticism, our work cautions that high-profile media attention to inaccurate scientific studies can undermine public confidence in vaccines. We conclude by offering several recommendations that researchers and health communicators might consider to detect and address future threats to vaccine confidence.

Indexed as

Measles-Mumps-Rubella VaccinePublic OpinionAutistic DisorderChildHumansUnited StatesVaccinationMeasles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine

Identifiers

PMID34411172
PMCPMC8376023
OpenAlexW3193702746

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.