Misinformation about science in the public sphere

Scheufele, Dietram A.; Hoffman, Andrew J.; Neeley, Liz; Reid, Czerne M.

doi:10.1073/pnas.2104068118

Cited by 34 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The use of IVM to treat COVID-19 has shown several limitations in management strategies: lack of transparency by some political leaders or media to support drug use without evidence of efficacy and safety; lack of leadership in implementing therapeutic science-based guidelines; and misuse of effective scientific communication [ 40 , 41 ]. Similar issues were previously experienced with hydroxychloroquine and will probably be repeated with other repurposed drugs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ivermectin for the Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Roman

Burela

Pasupuleti³

et al. 2021

Clinical Infectious Diseases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background We systematically assessed benefits and harms of the use of ivermectin (IVM) in COVID-19 patients. Methods Published and preprint randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing IVM effects on COVID-19 adult patients were searched until March 22, 2021 in five engines. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, length of stay (LOS), and adverse events (AE). Secondary outcomes included viral clearance and severe AEs. Risk of bias (RoB) was evaluated using Cochrane RoB 2·0 tool. Inverse variance random effect meta-analyses were performed. with quality of evidence (QoE) evaluated using GRADE methodology. Results Ten RCTs (n=1173) were included. Controls were standard of care [SOC] in five RCTs and placebo in five RCTs. COVID-19 disease severity was mild in 8 RCTs, moderate in one RCT, and mild and moderate in one RCT. IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality vs. controls (RR 0.37, 95%CI 0.12 to 1.13, very low QoE) or LOS vs. controls (MD 0.72 days, 95%CI −0.86 to 2.29, very low QoE). AEs, severe AE and viral clearance were similar between IVM and controls (all outcomes: low QoE). Subgroups by severity of COVID-19 or RoB were mostly consistent with main analyses; all-cause mortality in three RCTs at high RoB was reduced with IVM. Conclusions In comparison to SOC or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, length of stay or viral clearance in RCTs in COVID-19 patients with mostly mild disease. IVM did not have an effect on AEs or severe AEs. IVM is not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ivermectin for the Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Roman

Burela

Pasupuleti³

et al. 2021

Clinical Infectious Diseases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The irrational use of IVM to treat COVID-19 patients has demonstrated several limitations in management strategies: absence of transparency by some political leaders or media in order to avoid the use of drugs without evidence of efficacy and concerns about safety; lack of decisive leadership to implementing therapeutic science-based guidelines; and misuse of both effective communication and science of communication [40][41][42]. Similar issues were previously experienced with hydroxychloroquine and this situation likely will be repeated in the future with other repurposed drugs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Roman

Burela

Pasupuleti³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: We systematically assessed benefits and harms of the use of ivermectin (IVM) in COVID-19 patients. Methods: Published and preprint randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing IVM effects on COVID-19 adult patients were searched until March 15, 2021 in five engines. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, length of stay (LOS), and adverse events (AE). Secondary outcomes included viral clearance and severe AEs. We evaluated risk of bias (RoB) using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. Inverse variance random effect meta-analyses were performed with quality of evidence (QoE) evaluated using GRADE methodology. Subgroup analyses by severity of disease and RoB, and sensitivity analyses by time of follow-up were conducted. Results: Ten RCTs (n=1173) were included. Controls were standard of care [SOC] in five RCTs and placebo in five RCTs. RCTs sample size ranged from 24 to 398 patients, mean age from 26 to 56 years-old, and severity of COVID-19 disease was mild in 8 RCTs, moderate in one RCT, and mild and moderate in one RCT. IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality vs. controls (RR 1.11, 95%CI 0.16-7.65, very low QoE). IVM did not reduce LOS vs. controls (MD 0.72 days, 95%CI -0.86 to 2.29, very low QoE). AEs, severe AE and viral clearance were similar between IVM and controls (low QoE for these three outcomes). Subgroup analyses by severity of COVID-19 disease or RoB were consistent with main analyses. Sensitivity analyses excluding RCTs with follow up <21 days showed no difference in all-cause mortality but diminished heterogeneity (I2=0%). Conclusions: In comparison to SOC or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, length of stay or viral clearance in RCTs in COVID-19 patients with mostly mild disease. IVM did not have effect on AEs or SAEs. IVM is not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients.

show abstract

“…"The misinformation crisis exemplified and intensified by the COVID-19 pandemic lays a gauntlet at the door of all science communicators." 12 The disturbing pervasiveness and wide-reaching impacts of misinformation are indicative that combatting it will indeed require a coordinated global effort. 1 In addition to the insights the contributors to this issue have shared, additional resources and tools can be found on the following sites: P ublic health journals such as the American Journal of Health Promotion have spotlighted health misinformation in recent years as a cause for concern.…”

Section: In This Issuementioning

confidence: 99%

The Urgent Need for Coordinated and Comprehensive Efforts to Combat Misinformation

Johnson

2022

Am J Health Promot

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

M isinformation is by no means a new topic. Documented efforts to misinform date back as far as 44 BC with a political smear campaign against Mark Antony carved on coins. Advances in communication technology, ranging from the invention of the printing press to the explosion of social media platforms, have accelerated the speed with which misinformation can travel and its global reach. 1 Research has revealed numerous diverse contributors to our susceptibility to misinformation, including cognitive processing factors or reasoning styles; characteristics of the information and source; ease of consumption; political ideology; and demographic factors. 1 Dr. Shurney elaborates on some of these factors later in this issue.Misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic has been rampant since the outset, 2 particularly with regard to mask-wearing 1 and vaccines. 1,3 In fact, the World Health Organization and other global health organizations 4 called on the world leaders and other stakeholders to take action to manage the parallel infodemic (ie, overabundance of information that includes incorrect information to undermine the public health response). The first Surgeon General's Advisory issued during the Biden Administration was released by Dr. Vivek Murthy in July, 2021 to caution the American public about the urgent threat of health misinformation. 5 The Surgeon General warned that misinformation (ie, information that is false, inaccurate, or misleading based on the best evidence available) "can cause confusion, sow mistrust, and undermine public health efforts, including our ongoing work to end the COVID-19 pandemic." 5 Misinformation has also led to the use of unprovenand potentially dangeroustreatments for COVID-19, including ivermectin, 6 an antiparasitic drug used to deworm animals. In addition to overdoses that required hospitalization in some cases, people's use of this baseless treatment has caused a shortage of the drug for animals who need it. 7 Research has uncovered links between hundreds of deaths and thousands of hospitalizations globally and misinformation about other untested COVID-19 treatments. 8 Beyond the pandemic, misinformation also has very real and dire consequences in other areas, not the least of which is its potential to influence voting behavior and spur violence. 1 Addressing the threat of misinformation will require coordinated and comprehensive efforts on the part of the media; health care

show abstract

Misinformation about science in the public sphere

Cited by 34 publications

References 14 publications

Ivermectin for the Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Ivermectin for the Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The Urgent Need for Coordinated and Comprehensive Efforts to Combat Misinformation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About