ArticleDigital health
Assessing the quality of breast cancer-related videos on TikTok: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preliminary evaluation of the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of an online sexual health educational video series for breast cancer patients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Trial
- The current status and future directions of short video dissemination on urolithiasis via the TikTok platform: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Factors influencing information overload among breast cancer patients in the information explosion era: a cross-sectional study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- The quality and reliability of endometrial cancer-related videos on social short video platforms: a cross-sectional study.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- Evaluating the quality and reliability of cervical cancer related videos on YouTube, Bilibili, and Tiktok: a cross-sectional analysis.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Is This the Right Link? How TikTok Views Oncoplastic Breast Surgery.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Assessing the quality of myopia prevention videos on Chinese short video platforms: a cross-sectional content analysis by source.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Article
- Physician-dominated yet suboptimal: Evaluating the quality of Meniere's disease information on TikTok in China.Digital healthArticle
- Quality evaluation of information about sudden sensorineural hearing loss on TikTok videos: Cross-sectional study.Digital healthArticle
- Article
- Article
- Quality and reliability evaluation of chikungunya fever-related video content on Tiktok and Bilibili: A cross-sectional study.Digital healthArticle
- TikTok's cardiopulmonary exercise testing videos: A content analysis of quality and misinformation.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Breast cancer, the most common cancer in women globally, highlights the need for patient education. Despite many breast cancer discussions on TikTok, their scientific evaluation is lacking. Our study seeks to assess the content quality and accuracy of popular TikTok videos on breast cancer, to improve the dissemination of health knowledge. Methods: On August 22, 2023, we collected the top 100 trending videos from TikTok's Chinese version using "breast cancer/breast nodule" as keywords. We noted their length, TikTok duration, likes, comments, favorites, reposts, uploader types, and topics. Four assessment tools were used: Goobie's six questions, the Patient Educational Material Assessment Tool (PEMAT), the Video Information and Quality Index (VIQI), and the Global Quality Score (GQS). These instruments evaluate videos based on content, informational integrity, and overall quality. Results: Among the 100 videos, content quality was low with Goobie's questions mostly scoring 0, except for management at 1.0 (QR 1.0). PEMAT scores were moderate: 54.1 (QR 1.6) for sum, 47.0 (QR 18.8) for PEMAT-A, and 52.3 (QR 11.7) for PEMAT-U. Regarding the quality of information, the VIQI (sum) median was 14.1 (QR 0.2). Additionally, the median GQS score was 3.5 (QR 0.1). Medical professionals' videos focused on breast cancer stages, while patient videos centered on personal experiences. Patient videos had lower content and overall quality compared to those by medical professionals (PEMAT, GQS: Conclusion: TikTok's breast cancer content shows educational potential, but while informational quality is moderate, content quality needs improvement. Videos by medical professionals are of higher quality. We recommend increased involvement of healthcare professionals on TikTok to enhance content quality. Non-medical users should share verified information, and TikTok should strengthen its content vetting. Users must scrutinize the credibility of health information on social platforms.
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.