Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35273403›Full record

ReviewNature medicine2022

An epidemic of uncertainty: rumors, conspiracy theories and vaccine hesitancy.

Ed Pertwee, Clarissa Simas, Heidi J Larson

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 147 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
147citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

147 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Making US public health a good idea again.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2026
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

87 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

3 authors.

Ed PertweeDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. ed.pertwee@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9089-1649
Clarissa SimasDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0035-8419
Heidi J LarsonDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8477-7583

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The COVID-19 'infodemic' continues to undermine trust in vaccination efforts aiming to bring an end to the pandemic. However, the challenge of vaccine hesitancy is not only a problem of the information ecosystem and it often has little to do with the vaccines themselves. In this Perspective, we argue that the epidemiological and social crises brought about by COVID-19 have magnified widely held social anxieties and trust issues that, in the unique circumstances of this global pandemic, have exacerbated skepticism toward vaccines. We argue that trust is key to overcoming vaccine hesitancy, especially in a context of widespread social uncertainty brought about by the pandemic, where public sentiment can be volatile. Finally, we draw out some implications of our argument for strategies to build vaccine confidence.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesEcosystemHumansSARS-CoV-2UncertaintyVaccinationVaccination HesitancyCOVID-19 Vaccines

Identifiers

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.