Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39511120›Full record

ReviewJournal of general internal medicine2025

Online Misleading Information About Women's Reproductive Health: A Narrative Review.

Jennifer N John, Sara Gorman, David Scales, Jack Gorman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of general internal medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jennifer N JohnPenn Medical Communication Research Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Smilow Center for Translational Research Room, 12-136, 3400 Civic Center Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA, 19104-5160, USA. jennifernj@alumni.stanford.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-6076-0728
Sara Gorman, Critica, Bronx, NY, USA.
David Scales, Critica, Bronx, NY, USA.
Jack Gorman, Critica, Bronx, NY, USA.

Funding

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation 78084
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Misinformation about reproductive health threatens to harm health outcomes, compromise medical trust, and enable misinformed policy restrictions. In recent years, reproductive health misinformation has proliferated online due to ideological campaigns and limited content moderation for reproductive health topics. Developing evidence-based practices to counter reproductive health misinformation requires an understanding of the content that women are exposed to online, which is currently lacking. This review sought to identify common claims and narratives about reproductive health on social media and the internet that could easily mislead. We performed a narrative review of articles about online reproductive health misinformation, from which we extracted misleading claims and narratives. We conducted a qualitative content analysis to describe the ways in which the claims and narratives could be misleading. We found that potentially misleading claims and narratives about reproductive topics relating to contraception and abortion, fertility, chronic disease, breast cancer, maternal health, and vaccines abound across social media platforms and websites, with 112 identified in total. One-third of this content could mislead by claiming that evidence-based interventions were associated with unattributed risks. Twenty-three percent made medical recommendations that do not align with professional guidelines. Fourteen percent promoted alternative medicine. Smaller numbers of claims and narratives exaggerated risks of medical interventions, discouraged evidence-based interventions, directly undermined medical trust, and proposed inaccurate biological mechanisms. Healthcare professionals can proactively promote evidence-based medical decision-making by increasing their awareness of prominent misleading claims and narratives.

Indexed as

CommunicationInternetReproductive HealthSocial MediaWomen's HealthFemaleHumansNarrationmisinformationpatient educationreproductive healthsocial mediawomen’s health

Identifiers

PMID39511120
PMCPMC11968640

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.