Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35242704›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022

TikTok as an Information Hodgepodge: Evaluation of the Quality and Reliability of Genitourinary Cancers Related Content.

Xiaoqiang Xue, Xinyi Yang, Weifeng Xu, Guanghua Liu, Yi Xie, Zhigang Ji

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Analysis of Quality, Reliability, and Content of Cervical Cancer-Related Chinese Videos on TikTok.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Xiaoqiang XueDepartment of Urology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Xinyi YangDepartment of Health Care, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Weifeng XuDepartment of Urology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Guanghua LiuDepartment of Urology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Yi XieDepartment of Urology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Zhigang JiDepartment of Urology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTikTok is the world's fastest-growing video application, with 1.6 billion users in 2021. More and more patients are searching for information on genitourinary cancers MATERIALS AND

methodsWe retrieved 167 videos on bladder, prostate, and kidney cancer from TikTok. Only 61 videos (36.53%) met the inclusion criteria and were eventually regarded as sample videos. Each video's length and descriptions, hashtags, number of views/likes/comments, forms of expression, and the uploader's profile were included. Three validated assessment instruments: the Hexagonal Radar Schema, the Health on the Net Code scale, and the DISCERN instrument, were used for evaluating the quality and reliability of the information. All misinformation was counted and categorized. Univariate analysis of variance was performed for analyzing the results. The

resultsAmongst 61 sample videos, healthcare practitioners contributed the most content (n = 29, 47.54%). However, 22 posts (36.07%) were misinformative, and the most common type was using outdated data. More than half of the videos could provide good (> 1 point) content on the diseases' symptoms and examinations. However, the definition and outcomes were less addressed (tied at 21%). The HONcode scale and the DISCERN instrument revealed a consistent conclusion that most videos (n = 59, 96.72%) on TikTok were of poor to mediocre quality. Videos published by media agencies were statistically better in terms of reliability and overall score (

conclusionsMost videos on genitourinary cancers on TikTok are of poor to medium quality and reliability. However, videos posted by media agencies enjoyed great public attention and interaction. Medical practitioners could improve the video quality by cooperating with media agencies and avoiding unexplained terminologies.

Indexed as

genitourinary cancerqualityreliabilitysocial mediaTikTok

Identifiers

PMID35242704
PMCPMC8885733

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.