Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41047164›Full record

ArticleBMJ evidence-based medicine2025

Addressing misleading medical information on social media: a scoping review of current interventions.

Emma Grundtvig Gram, Ray Moynihan, Tessa Copp, Patti Shih, Loai Albarqouni, Elie Akl, Courtney Smith, Leah Hardiman, Brooke Nickel

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ evidence-based medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

9 authors.

Emma Grundtvig GramCentre and Research Unit for General Practice, University of Copenhagen Department of Public Health, Copenhagen, Denmark emma.gram@sund.ku.dk.ORCID 0000-0002-8519-8217
Ray MoynihanSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Tessa CoppSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7801-5884
Patti ShihAustralian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, School of Social Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.
Loai AlbarqouniBond University Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4114-9106
Elie AklDepartment of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Beirut Governorate, Lebanon.ORCID 0000-0002-3444-8618
Courtney SmithSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Leah HardimanConsumer Representative, NSW, Sydney, Australia.
Brooke NickelSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8100-4278

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMisleading information about medical products on social media may cause overuse.

objectivesExplore interventions targeting the problem of misleading medical information and marketing on social media, with a focus on preventing medical overuse including overdiagnosis. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included peer-reviewed studies with original data on an intervention targeting misleading medical information on social media and governmental/institutional responses with and without evaluation. We excluded responses relating to COVID-19. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: four electronic databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, PsycINFO, Academic Search Complete and Web of Science, and searches of grey literature on Google and Google Scholar. Search date: 9 June 2025. DATA CHARTING: We used prespecified data forms populated in duplicate by two reviewers.

resultsWe identified 27 peer-reviewed articles and 25 organisational and governmental responses (grey literature). 20 (74%) of the peer-reviewed interventions targeted the consumer to enhance 'media literacy', support decision-making or warn about misinformation trends. Approaches included education, such as videos or information materials, to improve detection of misinformation, as well as correcting misinformation and rebutting claims. Only two (7.4%) of the peer-reviewed approaches were sensitive to the problem of medical overuse: a risk-of-deception tool and an informed decision-making service. The grey literature about government and organisational responses chiefly comprised general advertising regulations and other educational resources for consumers to identify and navigate misinformation. The advertising regulations ranged from self-regulatory codes of practice to mandatory regulations, requiring pre-approval of social media marketing material. Most regulations stated advertising should be truthful, presenting both benefits and harms and not be misleading. Most of the grey literature (64%) was sensitive to medical overuse, though none referred explicitly to the problem.

conclusionsCurrent efforts to address misleading medical marketing on social media often overlook the critical issue of medical overuse and fail to provide sufficient consumer protections in this rapidly evolving digital landscape of social media, such as the speed of dissemination, reach and the role of third-party advertising. These gaps in research, regulation and practice present significant opportunities to strengthen evidence-based policies and public health responses. TRIAL REGISTRATION DETAILS: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2NJSH.

Indexed as

Medical OveruseSocial MediaCommunicationHumansEvidence-Based PracticeOverdiagnosisPolicyPUBLIC HEALTH

Identifiers

PMID41047164
PMCPMC12703284

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.