Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39118465›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2025

TikTok as a platform for hysteroscopy information: An analytical video-based cross-sectional study to assess quality, reliability, and accuracy.

Salvatore Giovanni Vitale, Stefano Angioni, Stefania Saponara, Gilda Sicilia, Andrea Etrusco, Maurizio Nicola D'Alterio, Luigi Cobellis, Pasquale De Franciscis, Gaetano Riemma

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Assessing quality, reliability and accuracy of polycystic ovary syndrome-related content on TikTok: A video-based cross-sectional analysis.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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 · 2025
    Article
  20. Review
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

9 authors.

Salvatore Giovanni VitaleDivision of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy.
Stefano AngioniDivision of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy.
Stefania SaponaraDivision of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy.
Gilda SiciliaDivision of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy.
Andrea EtruscoDepartment of Health Promotion, Mother and Child Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (PROMISE), University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Maurizio Nicola D'AlterioObstetrics and Gynecology Unit, Department of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
Luigi CobellisObstetrics and Gynecology Unit, Department of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
Pasquale De FranciscisObstetrics and Gynecology Unit, Department of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
Gaetano RiemmaObstetrics and Gynecology Unit, Department of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3676-7716

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the quality, reliability, and level of misinformation in TikTok videos about hysteroscopy.

methodsA cross-sectional analysis of TikTok videos retrieved using "hysteroscopy" as search term was performed. Patient education materials assessment tool for audio-visual content (PEMAT A/V), the modified DISCERN (mDISCERN), global quality scale (GQS), video information and quality index (VIQI) and misinformation assessment were used.

resultsOf three hundred videos captured, 156 were excluded and 144 were included. Most videos were partially accurate or uninformative (43.8% and 34.7%, respectively). Non-healthcare providers produced more inaccurate or uninformative videos than healthcare workers (51.1% vs 4.0%; P < 0.001). Compared to content by professionals, content by patients showed increased distrust towards gynecologists (11.7% vs 0%; P = 0.012) and increased incidence of anxiety and concern towards hysteroscopy (25.5% vs 2%; P < 0.001). PEMAT A/V scores for understandability and actionability were low at 42.9% (interquartile range [IQR]: 11.1-70) and 0% (IQR: 0-0), respectively. Understandability (P < 0.001) and actionability (P = 0.001) were higher for professionals' created content relative to patients' videos. Similarly, median mDISCERN score was low (1 [IQR 0-2]), with significantly higher score for healthcare professionals compared to patients (P < 0.001). Overall video quality was also low, with median VIQI and GQS score of 7 (IQR 4-11) and 1 (IQR 1-3), respectively, and significantly higher scores for healthcare workers' captions compared to patients' for both (P < 0.001 and P = 0.001, respectively).

conclusionTikTok videos' quality on hysteroscopy seems unsatisfactory and misinformative, with low understandability and actionability scores. Videos recorded by healthcare workers show higher quality and less misinformation than those by patients. Raising the awareness regarding the low quality of medical information on social media is crucial to increase future reliability and trustworthiness.

Indexed as

HysteroscopyVideo RecordingAdultCommunicationCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansPatient Education as TopicReproducibility of Resultshealthcare professionalshysteroscopyinternetmisinformationpatientsqualityreliabilitysocial mediaTikTokvideo

Identifiers

PMID39118465
PMCPMC11649867

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.