SynthesisPloS one2024
Correcting misinformation about the Russia-Ukraine War reduces false beliefs but does not change views about the War.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Susceptibility to Disinformation: A Data-Driven Typology Based on COVID-19 Hoaxes and Pro-Russian Propaganda.International journal of psychology : Journal international de psychologie · 2026Article
- Multilingual news dataset about Ukraine (2022-2025): data collection and documentation.Scientific data · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We report results from simultaneous experiments conducted in late 2022 in Belarus, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine. The experiments focus on fact-checking misinformation supportive of Russia in the Russia-Ukraine War. Meta-analysis makes clear that fact-checking misinformation reduces belief in pro-Kremlin false claims. Effects of fact-checks are not uniform across countries; our meta-analytic estimate is reliant on belief accuracy increases observed in Russia and Ukraine. While fact-checks improve belief accuracy, they do not change respondents' attitudes about which side to support in the War. War does not render individuals hopelessly vulnerable to misinformation-but fact-checking misinformation is unlikely to change their views toward the conflict.
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.