ArticleBMJ public health2026
Misinformation on cardiovascular disease spreads through social networks: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cardiovascular health remains susceptible to inaccurate information, which can harm health outcomes. This scoping review addresses a gap in comprehensive analyses by synthesising evidence on the prevalence, spread, impact and correction strategies related to cardiovascular health misinformation across diverse populations and settings. Methods: Following Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Index Medicus, Web of Science. A dual-reviewer process, using Covidence, screened articles in two phases (title/abstract, full-text) based on predefined inclusion criteria. Data extraction was performed by two reviewers, and results were synthesised narratively, presented by tables and figures. Results: From 6348 screened articles, 22 were included. The review reveals widespread misinformation concerning smoking, nutrition, blood pressure, weight management, alcohol consumption and diabetes care. Specific examples include misleading claims about e-cigarette safety and the downplaying of alcohol's harms. A substantial proportion of social media posts falsely discourage salt reduction (reaching 1.5 million followers) and a significant number of diet/exercise vlogs (36.7%) and YouTube videos on myocardial infarction (one-third) contain inaccuracies, often originating from unreliable sources. Instagram, Facebook, YouTube and X were identified as key platforms for dissemination. Conclusion: This review demonstrates that cardiovascular health misinformation is widespread and shaped by both platform dynamics and user-level factors. Addressing this challenge requires coordinated strategies that strengthen digital literacy, enhance visibility of evidence-based content and reduce the reach of misinformation. Collaborative efforts between public health agencies, clinical institutions and technology platforms are essential to ensure that trustworthy cardiovascular disease-related information reaches the public.
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.