ArticlePloS one2025
The use of social media as an influence on vaccination rates: A systematic review protocol.
Article in PloS one, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vaccine hesitancy has emerged as one of the major challenges to global public health, exacerbated by the phenomenon of the infodemic-a surge of misinformation amplified through social media platforms. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this dynamic significantly undermined public trust in vaccines. In this context, the present study protocol outlines a systematic review aimed at identifying and synthesizing evidence regarding the influence of infodemia on social media networks and its impact on vaccination coverage. The review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Manual for Evidence Synthesis and guided by the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) statement. The protocol has been registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42024581283). The research question was formulated using the PECO framework, where the population of interest is the general public; the intervention is the use of social media; the comparator is non-use of social media or use of other media channels; and the primary outcome is vaccination rates. Both qualitative and quantitative studies with primary or secondary data, published in English, Portuguese, or Spanish, will be included. Searches will be performed across major databases including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Medline, and Lilacs, as well as gray literature through Google Scholar and OpenGrey. Two independent reviewers will conduct study screening and data extraction using EndNote and Rayyan software. Methodological quality will be assessed using tools such as ROBINS-I and COREQ. This systematic review is expected to contribute evidence to guide health communication strategies, strengthen immunization campaigns, and inform public policies aimed at combating digital misinformation.
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.