↓ Skip to main content

Coronavirus Goes Viral: Quantifying the COVID-19 Misinformation Epidemic on Twitter

Overview of attention for article published in Cureus, March 2020
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
10 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
85 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
577 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
723 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Coronavirus Goes Viral: Quantifying the COVID-19 Misinformation Epidemic on Twitter
Published in
Cureus, March 2020
DOI 10.7759/cureus.7255
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kouzy, Ramez, Abi Jaoude, Joseph, Kraitem, Afif, El Alam, Molly B, Karam, Basil, Adib, Elio, Zarka, Jabra, Traboulsi, Cindy, Akl, Elie, Baddour, Khalil, Kouzy R, Abi Jaoude J, Kraitem A, El Alam M B, Karam B, Adib E, Zarka J, Traboulsi C, Akl E W, Baddour K

Abstract

Background Since the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic, misinformation has been spreading uninhibited over traditional and social media at a rapid pace. We sought to analyze the magnitude of misinformation that is being spread on Twitter (Twitter, Inc., San Francisco, CA) regarding the coronavirus epidemic.  Materials and methods We conducted a search on Twitter using 14 different trending hashtags and keywords related to the COVID-19 epidemic. We then summarized and assessed individual tweets for misinformation in comparison to verified and peer-reviewed resources. Descriptive statistics were used to compare terms and hashtags, and to identify individual tweets and account characteristics. Results The study included 673 tweets. Most tweets were posted by informal individuals/groups (66%), and 129 (19.2%) belonged to verified Twitter accounts. The majority of included tweets contained serious content (91.2%); 548 tweets (81.4%) included genuine information pertaining to the COVID-19 epidemic. Around 70% of the tweets tackled medical/public health information, while the others were pertaining to sociopolitical and financial factors. In total, 153 tweets (24.8%) included misinformation, and 107 (17.4%) included unverifiable information regarding the COVID-19 epidemic. The rate of misinformation was higher among informal individual/group accounts (33.8%, p: <0.001). Tweets from unverified Twitter accounts contained more misinformation (31.0% vs 12.6% for verified accounts, p: <0.001). Tweets from healthcare/public health accounts had the lowest rate of unverifiable information (12.3%, p: 0.04). The number of likes and retweets per tweet was not associated with a difference in either false or unverifiable content. The keyword "COVID-19" had the lowest rate of misinformation and unverifiable information, while the keywords "#2019_ncov" and "Corona" were associated with the highest amount of misinformation and unverifiable content respectively. Conclusions Medical misinformation and unverifiable content pertaining to the global COVID-19 epidemic are being propagated at an alarming rate on social media. We provide an early quantification of the magnitude of misinformation spread and highlight the importance of early interventions in order to curb this phenomenon that endangers public safety at a time when awareness and appropriate preventive actions are paramount.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 85 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 723 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 723 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 99 14%
Student > Master 93 13%
Researcher 79 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 64 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 38 5%
Other 142 20%
Unknown 208 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 92 13%
Social Sciences 91 13%
Computer Science 65 9%
Psychology 31 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 4%
Other 165 23%
Unknown 251 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 156. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 January 2023.
All research outputs
#237,040
of 23,852,579 outputs
Outputs from Cureus
#145
of 18,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,691
of 366,608 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cureus
#5
of 476 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,852,579 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 18,512 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 366,608 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 476 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.