ArticleWorld journal of urology2023
A cross-sectional quality assessment of TikTok content on benign prostatic hyperplasia.
Article in World journal of urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can social media videos meet patients' information needs for benign prostatic hyperplasia? A repeated cross-sectional study.BMC urology · 2026Article
- Perceptions of endometriosis surgery on TikTok: quality and implications for patient counselling.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2025Article
- Quality, Reliability and Accuracy of Hyperthyroidism-Related Content on Social Media Platform TikTok.Endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism · 2025Article
- TikTok and pediatric nephrology: content quality assessment of videos related to pediatric kidney disease and kidney transplant.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2024Article
- Evaluating the Quality and Impact of TikTok Videos on Autologous Breast Reconstruction with Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Artery Flaps.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- A cross-sectional study of the quality and reliability of renal cell carcinoma-related short videos on Bilibili and TikTok.Digital healthArticle
- Quality and reliability of prostate cancer-Videos on TikTok and Bilibili: Cross-sectional content analysis study.Digital healthArticle
- Quality and reliability of kidney stone information on TikTok and Bilibili: A cross-sectional study.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith an increasing reliance on online sources for medical information, we studied the quality and completeness of health literacy videos on TikTok regarding BPH.
methodsA cross-sectional systematic evaluation of TikTok videos using the search term "Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia" was performed on 14th April 2023, and included 49 patient information and educational videos. The videos were then analysed by two reviewers and scored using two instruments: the DISCERN instrument and a completeness analysis.
resultsOf the 49 videos, 38 were created by healthcare professionals (HCPs). The average length of each video was 62.7 ± 59.3 s, with a large average number of total views (24,990.1 ± 109,534.9 views). The DISCERN score trended higher in every category in videos published by HCPs compared to non-HCPs, with HCPs providing a statistically significant increase in reliability (19.0,14.6, p < 0.05) and total score (29.4,23, p < 0.05). Majority of videos were deemed as poor or worse (91.8%) in quality. The completeness of the videos' content was also evaluated across five categories with an average score of 2.53 ± 2.1 out of the maximum 12. The DISCERN scores did not correlate with the degree of completeness of the videos (r = 0.226).
conclusionBPH videos on TikTok have a wide reach, but the videos are mostly of low quality and completeness. Future videos should be made with quality and completeness in mind given the large viewership and more can be done to evaluate the extent of BPH misinformation and its impact on patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37728744What 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.