Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38373928›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2024

Survival analysis of the duration of rumors during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Xiaoyan Liu, Lele Zhang, Lixiang Sun, Ran Liu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
7.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Xiaoyan LiuSchool of Languages and Communication Studies, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing, 100044, China.
Lele ZhangSchool of Languages and Communication Studies, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing, 100044, China.
Lixiang SunSchool of Languages and Communication Studies, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing, 100044, China.
Ran LiuSchool of Medical Humanities and Management, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, 325035, China. ran.liu@wmu.edu.cn.
Beijing Jiaotong University · CNWenzhou Medical University · CN

Funding

National Social Science Fund of China 23BXW095
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic towards the end of 2019 triggered a relentless spread of online misinformation, which significantly impacted societal stability, public perception, and the effectiveness of measures to prevent and control the epidemic. Understanding the complex dynamics and characteristics that determine the duration of rumors is crucial for their effective management. In response to this urgent requirement, our study takes survival analysis method to analyze COVID-19 rumors comprehensively and rigorously. Our primary aim is to clarify the distribution patterns and key determinants of their persistence. Through this exploration, we aim to contribute to the development of robust rumor management strategies, thereby reducing the adverse effects of misinformation during the ongoing pandemic.

methodsThe dataset utilized in this research was sourced from Tencent's "Jiao Zhen" Verification Platform's "Real-Time Debunking of Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia" system. We gathered a total of 754 instances of rumors from January 18, 2020, to January 17, 2023. The duration of each rumor was ascertained using the Baidu search engine. To analyze these rumors, survival analysis techniques were applied. The study focused on examining various factors that might influence the rumors' longevity, including the theme of the content, emotional appeal, the credibility of the source, and the mode of presentation.

resultsOur study's results indicate that a rumor's lifecycle post-emergence typically progresses through three distinct phases: an initial rapid decline phase (0-25 days), followed by a stable phase (25-1000 days), and ultimately, an extinction phase (beyond 1000 days). It is observed that half of the rumors fade within the first 25 days, with an average duration of approximately 260.15 days. When compared to the baseline category of prevention and treatment rumors, the risk of dissipation is markedly higher in other categories: policy measures rumors are 3.58 times more likely to perish, virus information rumors have a 0.52 times higher risk, epidemic situation rumors are 4.86 times more likely to die out, and social current affairs rumors face a 2.02 times increased risk. Additionally, in comparison to wish rumors, bogie rumors and aggression rumors have 0.26 and 0.27 times higher risks of dying, respectively. In terms of presentation, graphical and video rumors share similar dissolution risks, whereas textual rumors tend to have a longer survival time. Interestingly, the credibility of the rumor's source does not significantly impact its longevity.

conclusionThe survival time of rumors is strongly linked to their content theme and emotional appeal, whereas the credibility of the source and the format of presentation have a more auxiliary influence. This study recommends that government agencies should adopt specific strategies to counter rumors. Experts and scholars are encouraged to take an active role in spreading health knowledge. It's important for the public to proactively seek trustworthy sources for accurate information. Media platforms are advised to maintain journalistic integrity, verify the accuracy of information, and guide the public towards improved media literacy. These actions, collectively, can foster a collaborative alliance between the government and the media, effectively combating misinformation.

Indexed as

COVID-19CommunicationEmotionsHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2COVID-19DurationRumorSurvival analysis

Identifiers

PMID38373928
PMCPMC10875786
OpenAlexW4391945062

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.