ArticleThe Permanente journal2024
COVID-19 Vaccine Information and Infertility Posts on X: Insights on a Misinformation Pandemic.
Article in The Permanente journal, 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.
- Impacts of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights Misinformation in Digital Spaces on Human Rights Protection and Promotion: Scoping Review.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- Article
- Exploring COVID-19 vaccine attitudes among pregnant women: key factors and strategies to enhance uptake.npj women's health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate misinformation surrounding infertility and the COVID-19 vaccine on X (formerly known as Twitter) by analyzing the prevalence and content of this misinformation across a sample of posts on X.
methodsThis study is a retrospective review of posts on X (formerly known as tweets) from the COVID-19-TweetIDs dataset from July 2021 and November 2021. Included posts were from crucial time points in the COVID-19 vaccine discourse and contained at least one word related to COVID-19 vaccination and fertility. Posts were analyzed and categorized based on factuality, common words, and hashtags. Descriptive statistics on total followers, account verification status, and engagement were obtained. Differences between posts on X classified as factual and misinformation were examined using analysis of variance or χ
resultsA total of 17,418 relevant posts on X were reviewed: 11,436 from timeframe 1 (July 2021) and 5982 from timeframe 2 (December 2021). Misinformation posts rose from 29.9% in July 2021 to 45.1% in November 2021. In both timeframes, accounts sharing factual information had more followers (p < 0.001), and verified users were more likely to share accurate posts (p ≤ 0.001). Factual and misinformation posts had similar engagement. Sentiment analysis identified that real posts were more positive and misinformation posts were more negative (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine and fertility is highly prevalent on X and threatens vaccine uptake in patients desiring future fertility. Accounts sharing factual information were likely to have more followers and be verified; therefore, verifying more physicians sharing accurate information is critical.
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.