Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35671411›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2022

Understanding How and by Whom COVID-19 Misinformation is Spread on Social Media: Coding and Network Analyses.

Yuehua Zhao, Sicheng Zhu, Qiang Wan, Tianyi Li, Chun Zou, Hao Wang, Sanhong Deng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Meniscal Tear Repair: What's New in the Literature?Translational sports medicine · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Health Information Disorders Models: A Scoping Review.Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery research
    Article
  8. Health Misinformation Detection: Approaches, Challenges and Opportunities.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
    Review
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

7 authors.

Yuehua ZhaoSchool of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.ORCID 0000-0002-8412-2878
Sicheng ZhuSchool of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.ORCID 0000-0003-3900-1169
Qiang WanSchool of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.ORCID 0000-0003-0826-8821
Tianyi LiSchool of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.ORCID 0000-0002-3704-1645
Chun ZouSchool of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.ORCID 0000-0002-3081-6727
Hao WangSchool of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.ORCID 0000-0002-0131-0823
Sanhong DengSchool of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.ORCID 0000-0002-6910-3935

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDuring global health crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic, rapid spread of misinformation on social media has occurred. The misinformation associated with COVID-19 has been analyzed, but little attention has been paid to developing a comprehensive analytical framework to study its spread on social media.

objectiveWe propose an elaboration likelihood model-based theoretical model to understand the persuasion process of COVID-19-related misinformation on social media.

methodsThe proposed model incorporates the central route feature (content feature) and peripheral features (including creator authority, social proof, and emotion). The central-level COVID-19-related misinformation feature includes five topics: medical information, social issues and people's livelihoods, government response, epidemic spread, and international issues. First, we created a data set of COVID-19 pandemic-related misinformation based on fact-checking sources and a data set of posts that contained this misinformation on real-world social media. Based on the collected posts, we analyzed the dissemination patterns.

resultsOur data set included 11,450 misinformation posts, with medical misinformation as the largest category (n=5359, 46.80%). Moreover, the results suggest that both the least (4660/11,301, 41.24%) and most (2320/11,301, 20.53%) active users are prone to sharing misinformation. Further, posts related to international topics that have the greatest chance of producing a profound and lasting impact on social media exhibited the highest distribution depth (maximum depth=14) and width (maximum width=2355). Additionally, 97.00% (2364/2437) of the spread was characterized by radiation dissemination.

conclusionsOur proposed model and findings could help to combat the spread of misinformation by detecting suspicious users and identifying propagation characteristics.

Indexed as

COVID-19Social MediaCommunicationHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2COVID-19epidemicglobal health crisishealth misinformationinfodemiologymedical informationmisinformationmisinformation spreadpandemicsocial mediatheoretical model

Identifiers

PMID35671411
PMCPMC9217148

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.