ReviewJournal of general internal medicine2025
Online Misleading Information About Women's Reproductive Health: A Narrative Review.
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.
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
34 citing papers in PubMed.
- Crisis pregnancy center messaging in the post-Dobbs era.Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Assessing the believability of contraceptive misinformation among young Latinas (CREO): protocol for a discrete choice experiment.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Trust in Digital Sexual Health Information Among Chinese College Students: Qualitative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Patient-Reported Experiences of Abortion Travel.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Fertility care in the age of algorithms: opportunities and risks of AI and social media integration in reproductive medicine.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Review
- Comprehensiveness, quality, and readability of non-invasive prenatal testing information on Japanese medical institution websites.PEC innovation · 2026Article
- Contraception-Related Posts from Adolescents, Young Adults, and Caregivers on Reddit: A Qualitative Content Analysis.Journal of pediatric and adolescent gynecology · 2026Article
- The illusion of empowerment: commercializing women's health in the digital age.Health promotion international · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Understanding User Intent in Code-Mixed Sexual and Reproductive Health Queries in Urban India: Hierarchical Classification Approach Using Large Language Models.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Knowledge and attitudes towards contraception among undergraduate students: a multicentre, cross-sectional study in Vietnam.BMJ open · 2026Article
- "You think everything's fine and then it starts not being fine": a qualitative descriptive study exploring the prenatal testing experiences of Black women living in England.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Quality, Reliability, and Dissemination of In Vitro Fertilization-Related Videos on Chinese Social Media: Cross-Sectional Analysis of 300 Short Videos.JMIR infodemiology · 2026Article
- Quality evaluation of health science popularization short videos related to cerebrovascular diseases on popular short video platforms in China: cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Article
- Exploring the Motivations and the Concerns Behind Self-Managed Medication Abortion Done by Purchasing Medication Online: Qualitative Interview Study With US Abortion Seekers Post-Roe.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- The violence of reproductive injustice: Reflections on birth control and its medical epistemics.International journal for equity in health · 2025Article
- Quantitative evaluation of recruitment strategies in a cluster-randomized trial: segmented regression and cost analysis from the AOK-Family + study.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Social Media Marketing of Non-Evidence-Based Women's Health Interventions: Protocol for a Content Analysis Using Participatory Research Methods.JMIR research protocols · 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
4 authors.
Funding
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
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.