ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024
Medical Misinformation in Polish on the World Wide Web During the COVID-19 Pandemic Period: Infodemiology Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the Relationship Between Susceptibility to Health Misinformation and Vaccine Hesitancy in Poland.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- What Patients With Asthma Share When No One Listens: Multimethod Observational Study of Patient Narratives on Reddit.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Observational
- Assessment of vaccine information accuracy across large language models.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough researchers extensively study the rapid generation and spread of misinformation about the novel coronavirus during the pandemic, numerous other health-related topics are contaminating the internet with misinformation that have not received as much attention.
objectiveThis study aims to gauge the reach of the most popular medical content on the World Wide Web, extending beyond the confines of the pandemic. We conducted evaluations of subject matter and credibility for the years 2021 and 2022, following the principles of evidence-based medicine with assessments performed by experienced clinicians.
methodsWe used 274 keywords to conduct web page searches through the BuzzSumo Enterprise Application. These keywords were chosen based on medical topics derived from surveys administered to medical practitioners. The search parameters were confined to 2 distinct date ranges: (1) January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2021; (2) January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2022. Our searches were specifically limited to web pages in the Polish language and filtered by the specified date ranges. The analysis encompassed 161 web pages retrieved in 2021 and 105 retrieved in 2022. Each web page underwent scrutiny by a seasoned doctor to assess its credibility, aligning with evidence-based medicine standards. Furthermore, we gathered data on social media engagements associated with the web pages, considering platforms such as Facebook, Pinterest, Reddit, and Twitter.
resultsIn 2022, the prevalence of unreliable information related to COVID-19 saw a noteworthy decline compared to 2021. Specifically, the percentage of noncredible web pages discussing COVID-19 and general vaccinations decreased from 57% (43/76) to 24% (6/25) and 42% (10/25) to 30% (3/10), respectively. However, during the same period, there was a considerable uptick in the dissemination of untrustworthy content on social media pertaining to other medical topics. The percentage of noncredible web pages covering cholesterol, statins, and cardiology rose from 11% (3/28) to 26% (9/35) and from 18% (5/28) to 26% (6/23), respectively.
conclusionsEfforts undertaken during the COVID-19 pandemic to curb the dissemination of misinformation seem to have yielded positive results. Nevertheless, our analysis suggests that these interventions need to be consistently implemented across both established and emerging medical subjects. It appears that as interest in the pandemic waned, other topics gained prominence, essentially "filling the vacuum" and necessitating ongoing measures to address misinformation across a broader spectrum of health-related subjects.
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.