This report consists of a review of recent research into reactive measures to counter mis- and disinformation, mainly, but not exclusively, on social media platforms. The target audience for this report is researchers, communicators and others who are engaged in countering misinformation, for example on social media. 53 articles have been selected for closer scrutiny based on method, relevance, date of publication, and publication language. The text reviews articles by focussing on tone, correction format, source rating, refutations by experts versus peers, and other direct countermeasures. Results show that the scientific evidence for the effectiveness of correcting false information is often inconsistent. Key conclusions that can be derived from current research are: - Researchers recommend that communicators do not repeat misinformation unless necessary. - Corrections on social media should emphasise the content over tone, as the effects of a correction have been found to be consistent regardless of the tone used. - A direct rebuttal is more effective than a delayed one. If the correction appears days or even weeks later, there is a risk that the subject has accepted the claim as true. - Correction credibility adheres to a hierarchy where self-corrections rank highest, followed by expert sources and, lastly, peers. - Expert sources can be "borrowed" when users provide links to credible and trustworthy sources. - The risk of a backfire effect occurring because of corrections to false and misleading information is limited. The report further discusses the empirical validity of the results and identifies gaps for future research. These gaps include, first, the inconsistencies in research results. There are many instances where results contradict each other. Second, there is a lack of research on real-life social media behaviour. Third, there is a lack of research on how countermeasures work for practitioners. These aspects are key if the field is to develop into a more coherent literature.