ArticleBMC public health2023
Status quo of the public's knowledge of probiotics based on video-sharing platforms.
Article in BMC public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Technological Innovation and Consumer Trust: Understanding Safety Perceptions in Next Generation Probiotic Development.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- Genesis, Health Benefits, and Future Perspectives of Probiotics: Exploring Endogenous and Exogenous Classes, Innovations, and Research Gaps.Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2026Review
- Quality Assessment of Health Information on Social Media During a Public Health Crisis: Infodemiology Study.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- Quality Assessment of Radiotherapy Health Information on Short-Form Video Platforms of TikTok and Bilibili: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR cancer · 2025Article
- Assessment of information quality and reliability on ankle sprains in short videos from Douyin and Bilibili.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- YouTube and Bilibili as sources of information on oral cancer: cross-sectional content analysis study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Counterfeit anti-choking suction devices: Prevalence and risks on online marketplaces.Resuscitation plus · 2025Article
- Hip fractures in Chinese TikTok (Douyin) short videos: an analysis of information quality, content and user comment attitudes.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Videos on YouTube, Bilibili, TikTok as sources of medical information on Hashimoto's thyroiditis.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Health-Related Messages About Herbs, Spices, and Other Botanicals Appearing in Print Issues and Websites of Legacy Media: Content Analysis and Evaluation.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Article
- The status quo of short videos as a source of health information regarding bowel preparation before colonoscopy.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- The quality and reliability of TikTok videos on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a propensity score matching analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Article
- Health information quality of gallbladder cancer videos on TikTok and Bilibili in China: A cross-sectional content analysis.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProbiotics have been deemed multipotent and unprecedentedly applied in the health field recently. However, there are challenges in promoting credible and reliable resources while avoiding misinformation regarding probiotics for the public.
methodsThis study analysed 400 eligible probiotic-related videos selected from YouTube, and the three most popular video-sharing platforms (Bilibili, Weibo and TikTok) in China. Video retrieval was performed on September 5
resultsThe identity distribution of probiotic video-producers was predominantly experts (n = 202, 50.50%), followed by amateurs (n = 161, 40.25%) and health-related institutions (n = 37, 9.25%). The videos' content category mainly discussed the function of probiotics (n = 120, 30%), the way to choose suitable products (n = 81, 20.25%), and the methods for taking probiotics (n = 71, 17.75%).The overall quality of videos was moderate (3/5 point) assessed by GQS, while the usage (1/6 point) and reliability (2/5 point) detailing probiotics assessed by tailored DISCERN tool were poor. The attitude of probiotic video-producers was primarily positive (n = 323, 80.75%), followed by neutral (n = 52, 13.00%) and negative (n = 25, 6.25%) (P < 0.001).
conclusionsThe current study showed that videos on social media platforms publicise important information including the concepts, usage, and precautions of probiotics to the public. But the overall quality of uploaded videos about probiotics was unsatisfactory. More efforts are needed to improve the higher-quality content of probiotic-related online videos and better propagate probiotic knowledge to the public in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.