ArticleJMIR formative research2024
The Quality of Short Videos as a Source of Coronary Heart Disease Information on TikTok: Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 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
29 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality evaluation of short videos about insomnia on TikTok and Bilibili: A cross-sectional study.Medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluating the reliability and quality of lupus nephritis educational content on TikTok and Bilibili: a cross-sectional content analysis.Lupus science & medicine · 2026Article
- Bilibili and Douyin (Chinese TikTok) videos as sources of health information about ventricular septal defect: a cross-sectional content and quality analysis of top-ranked patient-facing videos.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Bilibili and TikTok heart failure short video evaluation: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Quality, reliability and engagement of aortic dissection-related health information on TikTok: a cross-sectional study from China.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Article
- Bilibili/TikTok videos as sources of health information about atrial septal defect: a content and quality analysis.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Quality of TikTok videos on sudden cardiac death varies by video characteristics and health information accuracy.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The quality and reliability of short videos on acute myeloid leukemia on Bilibili and TikTok: A cross-sectional study.Medicine · 2026Article
- The quality and reliability of endometrial cancer-related videos on social short video platforms: a cross-sectional study.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- Assessment of content quality and reliability of short videos regarding myocardial infarction on TikTok and BiliBili: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Platform-mediated patient access to apical surgery information on Chinese short-video platforms: a cross-sectional study of clinical accuracy, transparency, and misinformation risk.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Article
- The reliability and quality of short videos as a source of dietary guidance for cardiovascular disease: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Agreement between artificial intelligence and expert evaluation in assessing the quality of asthma health education videos on YouTube and Bilibili: cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Quality evaluation of health science popularization short videos related to cerebrovascular diseases on popular short video platforms in China: cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Assessment of quality and reliability of Chinese-language myocardial infarction content on Bilibili and TikTok: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Participant or bystander: effect of teaching styles on viewer engagement in doctor-generated short videos.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Perceptions of endometriosis surgery on TikTok: quality and implications for patient counselling.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2025Article
- Quality and dissemination of thyroid cancer information on short-video platforms a cross-platform evaluation.Scientific reports · 2025Article
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
backgroundCoronary heart disease (CHD) is a leading cause of death worldwide and imposes a significant economic burden. TikTok has risen as a favored platform within the social media sphere for disseminating CHD-related information and stands as a pivotal resource for patients seeking knowledge about CHD. However, the quality of such content on TikTok remains largely unexplored.
objectiveThis study aims to assess the quality of information conveyed in TikTok CHD-related videos.
methodsA comprehensive cross-sectional study was undertaken on TikTok videos related to CHD. The sources of the videos were identified and analyzed. The comprehensiveness of content was assessed through 6 questions addressing the definition, signs and symptoms, risk factors, evaluation, management, and outcomes. The quality of the videos was assessed using 3 standardized evaluative instruments: DISCERN, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks, and the Global Quality Scale (GQS). Furthermore, correlative analyses between video quality and characteristics of the uploaders and the videos themselves were conducted.
resultsThe search yielded 145 CHD-related videos from TikTok, predominantly uploaded by health professionals (n=128, 88.3%), followed by news agencies (n=6, 4.1%), nonprofit organizations (n=10, 6.9%), and for-profit organizations (n=1, 0.7%). Content comprehensiveness achieved a median score of 3 (IQR 2-4). Median values for the DISCERN, JAMA, and GQS evaluations across all videos stood at 27 (IQR 24-32), 2 (IQR 2-2), and 2 (IQR 2-3), respectively. Videos from health professionals and nonprofit organizations attained significantly superior JAMA scores in comparison to those of news agencies (P<.001 and P=.02, respectively), whereas GQS scores for videos from health professionals were also notably higher than those from news agencies (P=.048). Within health professionals, cardiologists demonstrated discernibly enhanced performance over noncardiologists in both DISCERN and GQS assessments (P=.02). Correlative analyses unveiled positive correlations between video quality and uploader metrics, encompassing the positive correlations between the number of followers; total likes; average likes per video; and established quality indices such as DISCERN, JAMA, or GQS scores. Similar investigations relating to video attributes showed correlations between user engagement factors-likes, comments, collections, shares-and the aforementioned quality indicators. In contrast, a negative correlation emerged between the number of days since upload and quality indices, while a longer video duration corresponded positively with higher DISCERN and GQS scores.
conclusionsThe quality of the videos was generally poor, with significant disparities based on source category. The content comprehensiveness coverage proved insufficient, casting doubts on the reliability and quality of the information relayed through these videos. Among health professionals, video contributions from cardiologists exhibited superior quality compared to noncardiologists. As TikTok's role in health information dissemination expands, ensuring accurate and reliable content is crucial to better meet patients' needs for CHD information that conventional health education fails to fulfill.
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.