Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36840912›Full record

ArticleEndocrine2023

Is TikTok a high-quality source of information on thyroid cancer?

Shijie Yang, Jing Zhan, Xiequn Xu

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Endocrine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Evaluating How Patients with Thyroid Cancer Use Online Resources and Social Media to Access Health Information.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2025
    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

3 authors.

Shijie Yang *Department of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Jing Zhan *Department of Anesthesiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Xiequn XuDepartment of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China. xxq75@163.com.ORCID 0000-0003-0347-5258

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 32071436Natural Science Foundation of Beijing Municipality 7222127
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIncreased Internet users tend to use online video platforms as a source of medical information. There are many thyroid cancer-related videos on TikTok, the most popular short-video application in China. However, quality evaluation of these videos remains absent. The aim of this study is to evaluate the quality of thyroid cancer-related videos on TikTok.

methodsA search was performed on TikTok with the keyword "thyroid cancer". The top 100 videos in the search results were selected. Characteristics of videos including video length, duration on TikTok, thumbs up, thumbs up/day, comments, comments/day, favorites, favorites/day, reposts, and reposts/day were collected. The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT), modified DISCERN (mDISCERN), Video Information and Quality Index (VIQI), and Global Quality Score (GQS) were applied to assess the quality of videos.

resultsAmong the 100 videos in this study, most were uploaded by surgical physicians (n = 50), and the most common topic was anatomy/basic facts (n = 21). The mean scores of the PEMAT, PEMAT-U, and PEMAT-A were 71.18 ± 16.56, 82.23 ± 15.00, and 44.00 ± 37.57, respectively. Among the five questions of the mDISCERN tool, 71, 90, 82, 9, and 28 videos were evaluated as "yes", respectively. The mean scores of mDISCERN, VIQI, and GQS were 2.80 ± 1.03, 14.87 ± 2.27, and 3.72 ± 1.00, respectively. The characteristics and quality of videos are significantly different based on the uploader and content.

conclusionsThe quality of thyroid cancer information on TikTok is unsatisfactory. There is a need for high-quality thyroid cancer-related information on short-video platforms for patient education.

Indexed as

Social MediaThyroid NeoplasmsChinaHumansInformation Seeking BehaviorInformation SourcesInternet UseHealth informationQualityThyroid cancerTikTokVideo

Identifiers

PMID36840912

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.