ArticleJMIR formative research2023
Fact-Checking Cancer Information on Social Media in Japan: Retrospective Study Using Twitter.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Quality of Cancer-Related Information on New Media (2014-2023): Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Improving Critical Appraisal of Cancer-Related Health Information: A Pilot Randomised Trial of the Informed Health Choices-Cancer Programme.Psycho-oncology · 2026Trial
- Perceived usefulness of online videos for hereditary breast cancer communication in Japan: Patient and provider perspectives.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Investigating Online Discussions About Cancer Screening on Twitter (Subsequently Rebranded as X): Corpus Analysis.JMIR infodemiology · 2026Article
- Geographic Differences in Patient Experience After a Diagnosis of Lobular Breast Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Strategies for tackling fake news in healthcare: a complex approach from a nursing perspective.Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2026Article
- Evaluating the quality of Japanese YouTube videos on breast cancer treatment using PRHISM: comparison by source credibility.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2026Article
- Assessing the quality of Japanese online breast cancer treatment information using large language models: a comparison of ChatGPT, Claude, and expert evaluations.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2025Article
- Developing critical thinking and decision-making skills for cancer information: the Informed Health Choice-Cancer online learning resource.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2025Article
- Assessing the Reliability and Validity of Principles for Health-Related Information on Social Media (PRHISM) for Evaluating Breast Cancer Treatment Videos on YouTube: Instrument Validation Study.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- Selling Misleading "Cancer Cure" Books on Amazon: Systematic Search on Amazon.com and Thematic Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Japanese Perception of Brain Death and Implications for New Medical Technologies: Quantitative and Qualitative Social Media Analysis.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Cancer: A model topic for misinformation researchers.Current opinion in psychology · 2024Review
- Characterizing user demographics in posts related to breast, lung and colon cancer on Japanese twitter (X).Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Cancer misinformation on social media.CA: a cancer journal for cliniciansReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe widespread use of social media has made it easier for patients to access cancer information. However, a large amount of misinformation and harmful information that could negatively impact patients' decision-making is also disseminated on social media platforms.
objectiveWe aimed to determine the actual amount of misinformation and harmful information as well as trends in the dissemination of cancer-related information on Twitter, a representative social media platform. Our findings can support decision-making among Japanese patients with cancer.
methodsUsing the Twitter app programming interface, we extracted tweets containing the term "cancer" in Japanese that were posted between August and September of 2022. The eligibility criteria were the cancer-related tweets with the following information: (1) reference to the occurrence or prognosis of cancer, (2) recommendation or nonrecommendation of actions, (3) reference to the course of cancer treatment or adverse events, (4) results of cancer research, and (5) other cancer-related knowledge and information. Finally, we selected the top 100 tweets with the highest number of "likes." For each tweet, 2 independent reviewers evaluated whether the information was factual or misinformation, and whether it was harmful or safe with the reasons for the decisions on the misinformation and harmful tweets. Additionally, we examined the frequency of information dissemination using the number of retweets for the top 100 tweets and investigated trends in the dissemination of information.
resultsThe extracted tweets totaled 69,875. Of the top 100 cancer-related tweets with the most "likes" that met the eligibility criteria, 44 (44%) contained misinformation, 31 (31%) contained harmful information, and 30 (30%) contained both misinformation and harmful information. Misinformation was described as Unproven (29/94, 40.4%), Disproven (19/94, 20.2%), Inappropriate application (4/94, 4.3%), Strength of evidence mischaracterized (14/94, 14.9%), Misleading (18/94, 18%), and Other misinformation (1/94, 1.1%). Harmful action was described as Harmful action (9/59, 15.2%), Harmful inaction (43/59, 72.9%), Harmful interactions (3/59, 5.1%), Economic harm (3/59, 5.1%), and Other harmful information (1/59, 1.7%). Harmful information was liked more often than safe information (median 95, IQR 43-1919 vs 75.0 IQR 43-10,747; P=.04). The median number of retweets for the leading 100 tweets was 13.5 (IQR 0-2197). Misinformation was retweeted significantly more often than factual information (median 29.0, IQR 0-502 vs 7.5, IQR 0-2197; P=.01); harmful information was also retweeted significantly more often than safe information (median 35.0, IQR 0-502 vs 8.0, IQR 0-2197; P=.002).
conclusionsIt is evident that there is a prevalence of misinformation and harmful information related to cancer on Twitter in Japan and it is crucial to increase health literacy and awareness regarding this issue. Furthermore, we believe that it is important for government agencies and health care professionals to continue providing accurate medical information to support patients and their families in making informed decisions.
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.