ArticleScientific reports2024
Douyin and Bilibili as sources of information on lung cancer in China through assessment and analysis of the content and quality.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 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
30 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating pulpitis-related content on Chinese social media: platform comparison, dental practitioner impact and associated factors.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Quality and reliability of anxiety disorder-related short videos on TikTok and Bilibili: A cross-sectional study.Medicine · 2026Article
- TikTok, Xiaohongshu, and Bilibili as sources of medical information on lung cancer: a multi-platform content evaluation.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Quality, reliability, and engagement of COPD-related videos on Chinese short-form video platforms: a cross-sectional content analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The reach-rigor paradox in health communication: a comparative analysis of congenital heart disease content quality and engagement on TikTok and Bilibili.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- A cross-sectional study on the quality of pediatric autism-related videos on short video platforms.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Assessing the content and quality of deep vein thrombosis on Bilibili, TikTok, and YouTube: a cross-sectional study.Thrombosis journal · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the quality of information on gouty arthritis on Chinese internet platforms: A cross-sectional comparative analysis.Medicine · 2026Article
- Quality, reliability and engagement of aortic dissection-related health information on TikTok: a cross-sectional study from China.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Quality and reliability of knee osteoarthritis-related information on short video platforms in China: a multi-method cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Quality, Reliability, and Dissemination of In Vitro Fertilization-Related Videos on Chinese Social Media: Cross-Sectional Analysis of 300 Short Videos.JMIR infodemiology · 2026Article
- A cross-sectional analysis of the quality and characteristics of sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome videos on YouTube, Bilibili, and TikTok.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Machine learning prediction models for the popularization and dissemination of medical science popularization videos.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Quality assessment of dry eye educational videos on Xiaohongshu and differences by uploader type.Frontiers in medicine · 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
- Quality and reliability of semaglutide-related health information on Chinese short-video platforms: a cross-sectional study of Bilibili and TikTok.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- BiliBili, Douyin and Xiaohongshu as health information platforms for stroke: evaluating information quality and content.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Assessing the quality of myopia prevention videos on Chinese short video platforms: a cross-sectional content analysis by source.BMJ open · 2025Article
- YouTube and Bilibili as sources of information on oral cancer: cross-sectional content analysis study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Unpacking Young Adults' Fact-Checking Intent on Oral Health Misinformation: Parallel Mediating Roles of Need for Cognition and Perceived Seriousness-A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lung cancer has emerged as a major global public health concern. With growing public interest in lung cancer, online searches for related information have surged. However, a comprehensive evaluation of the credibility, quality, and value of lung cancer-related videos on digital media platforms remains unexamined. This study aimed to assess the informational quality and content of lung cancer-related videos on Douyin and Bilibili. A total of 200 lung cancer-related videos that met the criteria were selected from Douyin and Bilibili for evaluation and analysis. The first step involved recording and analyzing the basic information provided in the videos. Subsequently, the source and type of content for each video were identified. All videos' educational content and quality were then evaluated using JAMA, GQS, and Modified DISCERN. Douyin videos were found to be more popular in terms of likes, comments, favorites, and shares, whereas Bilibili videos were longer in duration (P < .001). The majority of video content on both platforms comprised lung cancer introductions (31/100, 31%), with medical professionals being the primary source of uploaded videos (Douyin, n = 55, 55%; Bilibili, n = 43, 43%). General users on Douyin scored the lowest on the JAMA scale, whereas for-profit businesses scored the highest (2.50 points). The results indicated that the videos' informational quality was insufficient. Videos from science communications and health professionals were deemed more reliable regarding completeness and content quality compared to videos from other sources. The public should exercise caution and consider the scientific validity when seeking healthcare information on short video 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.