ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
Online Information of COVID-19: Visibility and Characterization of Highest Positioned Websites by Google between March and April 2020-A Cross-Country Analysis.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the Readability, Quality, and Reliability of Online Patient Information Materials Related to Sarcopenia.Cureus · 2025Article
- The Relationship between Searches for COVID-19 Vaccines and Dynamics of Vaccinated People in Poland: An Infodemiological Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- COVID-19 Misinformation and Social Network Crowdfunding: Cross-sectional Study of Alternative Treatments and Antivaccine Mandates.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Disparities in COVID-19 Information Sources and Knowledge in South Korea.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Article
- Online information on chronic pain in 3 countries: an assessment of readability, credibility, and accuracy.Pain reportsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe WHO has used the term "infodemic" to describe the vast amount of false and true information that was making it difficult for people to find reliable information when they needed it. The infodemic spreads faster than COVID-19 itself. The main objective of the study was to characterize and analyze content about COVID-19 returned by Google during the pandemic and compare it between countries.
methodsThe study was conducted between 30 March and 27 April 2020. The information was searched through local Google websites using the "COVID-19", "Coronavirus", "SARS-CoV-2" and "fake news" keywords. The search was conducted in Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Singapore, Spain, UK and the USA. The total number of the analyzed webpages was 685.
resultsThe most frequent types were News websites 47% (324/685) and Governmental 19% (131/685) while the least were Health portals 2% (17/685) and Scientific journals 5% (35/635),
conclusionsOnline information is usually available on news and government websites and refers to prevention. There were differences between countries in types of information available online. The highest positioned (the first 20) websites for COVID-19, Coronavirus and SARS-CoV-2 keywords returned by Google include true information.
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.