ArticleFrontiers in public health2022
Timeliness of online COVID-19 reports from official sources.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Making epidemiological indicators for COVID-19 publicly available through websites and social media can support public health experts in the near-real-time monitoring of the situation worldwide, and in the establishment of rapid response and public health measures to reduce the consequences of the pandemic. Little is known, however, about the timeliness of such sources. Here, we assess the timeliness of official public COVID-19 sources for the WHO regions of Europe and Africa. Methods: We monitored official websites and social media accounts for updates and calculated the time difference between daily updates on COVID-19 cases. We covered a time period of 52 days and a geographic range of 62 countries, 28 from the WHO African region and 34 from the WHO European region. Results: The most prevalent categories were social media updates only (no website reporting) in the WHO African region (32.7% of the 1,092 entries), and updates in both social media and websites in the WHO European region (51.9% of the 884 entries for EU/EEA countries, and 73.3% of the 884 entries for non-EU/EEA countries), showing an overall clear tendency in using social media as an official source to report on COVID-19 indicators. We further show that the time difference for each source group and geographical region were statistically significant in all WHO regions, indicating a tendency to focus on one of the two sources instead of using both as complementary sources. Discussion: Public health communication via social media platforms has numerous benefits, but it is worthwhile to do it in combination with other, more traditional means of communication, such as websites or offline communication.
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.