ArticlePloS one2024
Low credibility URL sharing on Twitter during reporting linking rare blood clots with the Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Auditing the impact of social media's policy shift on anti-vaccine discourse: A large language model-driven empirical study.PloS one · 2026Article
- Interdisciplinary human-centric architectural framework for One Health surveillance, early warning, and response: leveraging AI modelling and IoT environmental monitoring.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Long-term trends in reporting of cardiac adverse drug reactions to COVID-19 vaccines - an exploratory analysis of the EudraVigilance database.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Observational
- Serious adverse drug reactions associated with anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and their reporting trends in the EudraVigilance database.Scientific reports · 2025Observational
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic was accompanied by an "infodemic" of misinformation. Misleading narratives around the virus, its origin, and treatments have had serious implications for public health. In March 2021, concerns were raised about links between the Oxford/AstraZeneca (AZ) COVID-19 vaccine and recipients developing blood clots. This paper aims to identify whether this prompted any reaction in the diffusion of low-credibility COVID-19-relate information on Twitter. Twitter's application programming interface was used to collect data containing COVID-19-related keywords between 4th and 25th March 2021, a period centred on the peak of new coverage linking rare blood clots with the AZ vaccine. We analysed and visualised the data using temporal analysis and social network analysis tools. We subsequently analysed the data to determine the most influential users and domains in the propagation of low-credibility information about COVID-19 and the AZ vaccine. This research presents evidence that the peak of news coverage linking rare blood clots with the AZ vaccine correlated with an increased volume and proportion of low-credibility AZ-related content propagated on Twitter. However, no equivalent changes to the volume, propagation, or network structure for the full dataset of COVID-19-related information or misinformation were observed. The research identified RT.com as the most prolific creator of low-credibility COVID-19-related content. It also highlighted the crucial role of self-promotion in the successful propagation of low-credibility content on Twitter. The findings suggest that the simple approach adopted within the research to identify the most popular and influential sources of low-credibility content presents a valuable opportunity for public health authorities and social media platforms to develop bespoke strategies to counter the propagation of misinformation in the aftermath of a breaking news event.
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.