ReviewCA: a cancer journal for clinicians
Cancer misinformation on social media.
Review in CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 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
45 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving Critical Appraisal of Cancer-Related Health Information: A Pilot Randomised Trial of the Informed Health Choices-Cancer Programme.Psycho-oncology · 2026Trial
- Effect of physician prescribed information to the inflammatory bowel disease patients on quality of life and disease relapse: a randomised control trial.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2026Trial
- Cervical cancer and screening: Knowledge, attitudes, and adherence among university students in Italy.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Article
- The "good cancer" paradox: Decisional conflict and unmet support needs in patients with thyroid cancer facing surgical decisions-A mixed-methods study.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2026Article
- Medication-Related Information on Social Media: Exploring Public Trust, Perceptions of Credibility, and Influence on Behavior.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Investigating Online Discussions About Cancer Screening on Twitter (Subsequently Rebranded as X): Corpus Analysis.JMIR infodemiology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the Quality of Online Resources for Scanxiety: YouTube and Major Websites.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Article
- Evaluation of a Retrieval-Augmented Generation-Based Large Language Model for Evidence-Based Herb and Supplement Information in Cancer Care.JMIR cancer · 2026Article
- A cross sectional content analysis evaluates chemotherapy health information quality and reliability on TikTok and Bilibili.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The Double-Edged Role of Social Media in Modern Healthcare: Awareness, Impact, and Misinformation.Journal of immunotherapy and precision oncology · 2026Review
- Beyond Visibility: Social Media, Trust, and Responsibility in Oncology.Journal of immunotherapy and precision oncology · 2026Article
- Lung cancer education on social media: use patterns and content preferences from a cross-sectional study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Information Quality, Content Scope, and Audience Engagement of Popular Turkish Instagram Posts on Tooth Whitening: A Cross-Sectional Content Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparison of Feature Selection Methods in Machine Learning Models of Cancer Information Seeking Among United States Adults: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Helping people navigate and make sense of cancer information: challenges and perspectives.Future oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- ChatGPT Versus DeepSeek for Breast Cancer Information Retrieval: Quantitative Comparative Study.JMIR cancer · 2026Article
- Do likes reflect quality? Engagement metrics and information reliability of robotic surgery short videos.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- From hematuria warning to precision immunotherapy: an AI-assisted cross-platform analysis of bladder cancer information on social media.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Network analysis of distress, symptom burden, social support, and digital health literacy in older postoperative patients with gastric cancer.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Role of electronic health literacy and insight into cancer among health workers and patients: a review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Social media is widely used globally by patients, families of patients, health professionals, scientists, and other stakeholders who seek and share information related to cancer. Despite many benefits of social media for cancer care and research, there is also a substantial risk of exposure to misinformation, or inaccurate information about cancer. Types of misinformation vary from inaccurate information about cancer risk factors or unproven treatment options to conspiracy theories and public relations articles or advertisements appearing as reliable medical content. Many characteristics of social media networks-such as their extensive use and the relative ease it allows to share information quickly-facilitate the spread of misinformation. Research shows that inaccurate and misleading health-related posts on social media often get more views and engagement (e.g., likes, shares) from users compared with accurate information. Exposure to misinformation can have downstream implications for health-related attitudes and behaviors. However, combatting misinformation is a complex process that requires engagement from media platforms, scientific and health experts, governmental organizations, and the general public. Cancer experts, for example, should actively combat misinformation in real time and should disseminate evidence-based content on social media. Health professionals should give information prescriptions to patients and families and support health literacy. Patients and families should vet the quality of cancer information before acting upon it (e.g., by using publicly available checklists) and seek recommended resources from health care providers and trusted organizations. Future multidisciplinary research is needed to identify optimal ways of building resilience and combating misinformation across social media.
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.