ArticlePloS one2026
Statistical misreasoning in online content about vaccines: Implications and recommendations for addressing disinformation.
Article in PloS one, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStatistical misreasoning is a key mechanism through which anti-vaccine narratives distort scientific information and undermine public confidence in immunisation. Although prior research has examined thematic and ideological features of vaccine misinformation, little is known about the specific errors in numerical reasoning that shape users' interpretations of vaccine-related data.
methodsA total of 597 Polish-language Facebook posts expressing anti-vaccine views and containing references to statistical information were analysed. Based on previous research on statistical cognition and an inductive review of the material, a coding scheme comprising ten categories of statistical misreasoning was developed and applied to all posts. Quantitative analyses were then conducted to examine how frequently these categories occurred and which combinations of errors appeared together.
resultsThe most prevalent forms of misreasoning were the correlation-causation fallacy (70%, p < 0.001) and base rate neglect (58%, p < 0.001). Denominator neglect and cherry picking appeared in half of the posts, while the remaining categories were less frequent. Most posts contained multiple errors (median = 4), and the most common configuration involved the correlation-causation fallacy, base rate neglect and denominator neglect. The distribution of error counts further showed that posts most often exhibited four distinct categories of misreasoning (23%), followed by three (19%) and five (17%), and overall a majority of posts (62%, p < 0.001) contained between one and four different types of errors. Co-occurrence analysis revealed stable structural patterns, with the strongest association observed between denominator neglect and intuitive reasoning error (ϕ = 0.23; p < 0.001).
conclusionAnti-vaccine discourse exhibits systematic patterns of statistical misreasoning that shape erroneous interpretations of vaccine-related data, highlighting the need to address cognitive and statistical misunderstandings through targeted public health communication.
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.