We synthesize evidence from 176 experimental estimates of 11 interventions intended to combat misinformation in the Global North and Global South, which we classify as informational, educational, sociopsychological, or institutional. Among these, we find the most consistent positive evidence for two informational interventions in both Global North and Global South contexts: inoculation/prebunking and debunking. In a complementary survey of 138 misinformation scholars and practitioners, we find that experts tend to be most optimistic about interventions that have been least widely studied or that have been shown to be mostly ineffective. We provide a searchable database of misinformation randomized controlled trials and suggest avenues for future research to close the gap between expert opinion and academic research.

我们综合了来自 11 项干预措施的 176 项实验估计的证据，这些干预措施旨在打击北半球和南半球的错误信息，我们将其分类为信息性、教育性、社会心理学或制度性干预措施。其中，我们发现了北半球和南半球背景下两种信息干预措施最一致的积极证据：预防/谎言前和揭穿真相。在对 138 名错误信息学者和从业者进行的补充调查中，我们发现专家往往对研究最少或已被证明大多无效的干预措施最为乐观。我们提供了一个可搜索的错误信息随机对照试验数据库，并提出了未来研究的途径，以缩小专家意见和学术研究之间的差距。