ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2022
COVID-19 and the
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Impact of Study Size on COVID-19 Treatment Outcomes: A Meta-Epidemiological Study Comparing Large and Small Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.Reviews in medical virology · 2026Pooled it
- The Role of eHealth Literacy and Patient Adherence in Mediating Health Consciousness and Perceived Severity in Quality of Life Among Young Patients With Ischemic Heart Disease: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Group cognitive space of online rumors in public health emergencies: a theoretical and empirical study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Infodemic: Challenges and solutions in topic discovery and data process.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2023Article
- Defining Misinformation and Related Terms in Health-Related Literature: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Biased, wrong and counterfeited evidences published during the COVID-19 pandemic, a systematic review of retracted COVID-19 papers.Quality & quantity · 2022Article
- Parents' perspective on COVID-19 vaccine in children 6 months through 4 years: a cross-sectional study from Northwest Wisconsin.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The infodemic is an important component of the cyber-risk in regard to the poor and uncontrolled dissemination of information related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of this study was to perform a narrative review based on three points of view to allow for an overall picture of this issue. The points of view focused on: (a) the volume of use of social media (a key element of the infodemic) and the position of international health domain bodies; (b) the evolution of scientific production in the life sciences; (c) emerging issues. The research methodology was based on Google and PubMed searches and a qualification process based on a standard checklist and an evaluation of eligibility based on parameters with five score levels applied by two experts (plus one in case of discrepancy). The three points of view stressed the key role of social media as a dissemination tool of the infodemic among citizens. The impact on citizens depends on various social factors and involves indirect (e.g., vaccine avoidance) and direct risks such as mental problems and the risk of suicide. The widespread diffusion of social media, conveyed by mobile technologies, also suggests their use as countermeasures, calibrated based on citizens’ level of both technological and health literacy. Effective and promising countermeasures in this direction are based both on initiatives of contact by apps or SMS and the collection of data based on surveys and finalized to the particular intervention. The review also suggests as further areas of in-depth research: (a) to combat high-level infodemic produced by scientific publications that are not yet official (preprint) or that have undergone peer review with bias/distortion; (b) focusing on the impact of the infodemic considering its spread in different languages.
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.