ArticleAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE2024
A pandemic of COVID-19 mis- and disinformation: manual and automatic topic analysis of the literature.
Article in Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Social media's arrival eased the sharing of mis- and disinformation. False information proved challenging throughout the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with many clinicians and researchers analyzing the "infodemic." We systemically reviewed and synthesized COVID-19 mis- and disinformation literature, identifying the prevalence and content of false information and exploring mitigation and prevention strategies. Design: We identified and analyzed publications on COVID-19-related mis- and disinformation published from March 1, 2020, to December 31, 2022, in PubMed. We performed a manual topic review of the abstracts along with automated topic modeling to organize and compare the different themes. We also conducted sentiment (ranked -3 to +3) and emotion analysis (rated as predominately happy, sad, angry, surprised, or fearful) of the abstracts. Results: We reviewed 868 peer-reviewed scientific publications of which 639 (74%) had abstracts available for automatic topic modeling and sentiment analysis. More than a third of publications described mitigation and prevention-related issues. The mean sentiment score for the publications was 0.685, and 56% of studies had a negative sentiment (fear and sadness as the most common emotions). Conclusions: Our comprehensive analysis reveals a significant proliferation of dis- and misinformation research during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our study illustrates the pivotal role of social media in amplifying false information. Research into the infodemic was characterized by negative sentiments. Combining manual and automated topic modeling provided a nuanced understanding of the complexities of COVID-19-related misinformation, highlighting themes such as the source and effect of misinformation, and strategies for mitigation and prevention.
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.