ArticleCureus2023
Navigating Digital Dermatology: An Analysis of Acne-Related Content on TikTok.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Evaluating the reliability and quality of lupus nephritis educational content on TikTok and Bilibili: a cross-sectional content analysis.Lupus science & medicine · 2026Article
- Exposome involvement in the development of acne vulgaris.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Quality, Reliability and Accuracy of Hyperthyroidism-Related Content on Social Media Platform TikTok.Endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism · 2025Article
- #Acne: A Thematic Qualitative Analysis of Acne Content on TikTok.The Australasian journal of dermatology · 2025Article
- Acne-related TikTok Videos in Finnish Lack Accurate Information.Acta dermato-venereologica · 2025Article
- One Acne™: A holistic management approach to improve overall skin quality and treatment outcomes in acne with or without sensitive skin.International journal of dermatology · 2025Review
- TikTok as a platform for hysteroscopy information: An analytical video-based cross-sectional study to assess quality, reliability, and accuracy.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background With TikTok's rising popularity as a hub for health information dissemination, the quality and nature of such content require assessment. This study investigates the popularity and quality of the top 100 most-liked videos tagged with "#acne" on TikTok. This study aims to examine the engagement and quality of acne-related content on TikTok, assess contributions from diverse sources, including physicians and non-physicians, and guide healthcare professionals in leveraging this platform for public health education. Methodology A cross-sectional analysis of the top 100 most-liked videos tagged with "#acne" on TikTok as of June 7, 2023, was conducted. Parameters assessed included the profession of the creator, gender, specialty, content type, and other observable characteristics. The quality was measured using the DISCERN tool. Results Of the dataset, 38 videos were by physicians and 29 by non-physicians. Physician-created content had higher mean views, likes, comments, shares, and favorites than non-physician-created content. Videos by dermatologists and non-dermatologists received similar engagement. Videos sharing personal experiences achieved the highest DISCERN score. Overall, DISCERN scores were uniformly low across all categories. Conclusions Physicians, especially dermatologists, are trusted sources of acne-related information on TikTok. The study underscores the need for professionals to provide reliable, evidence-based information on such platforms, guiding effective health communication in the digital age.
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.