ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2025
A multi-disciplinary exploration of the press review of the Italian National Institute of Health during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examines how Italian national newspapers portrayed COVID-19 vaccines during 2020-2021. A corpus of 5,621 articles from seven newspapers, collected via the Italian National Institute of Health's daily press review, was analyzed with SketchEngine using corpus-assisted discourse methods. Quantitative analysis showed a rise in vaccine-related coverage at the end of 2020 and throughout 2021. Core terms such as vaccino (vaccine) and vaccinazione (vaccination) were frequent, while occasional use of synonyms like serum and antidote risked creating confusion. Qualitative analysis revealed instances of "false balance," where anti-vaccine views were presented alongside pro-vaccine perspectives as if equally supported by evidence. These findings suggest that even authoritative outlets reproduced reporting practices that may undermine public understanding of vaccines. Greater awareness of such practices, and closer collaboration between health professionals and communication experts, could help improve the quality of health information in the media.
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.