ArticleSexually transmitted diseases2025
Assessing the Quality and Accuracy of Syphilis-Related Content on TikTok and YouTube: A Comprehensive Analysis.
Article in Sexually transmitted diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSexually transmitted infections, including syphilis, pose a significant public health challenge. The advent of social media platforms has revolutionized health information dissemination, with YouTube and TikTok emerging as prominent sources. However, concerns persist regarding the reliability of syphilis-related content on these platforms. This study aimed to evaluate the quality and accuracy of syphilis-related content on TikTok and YouTube, using established tools such as DISCERN, Accuracy in Digital-health Instrument (ANDI), and Global Quality Scale (GQS). METHODOLOGY: We conducted a thorough search on TikTok and YouTube on November 26, 2023, using the keyword "syphilis." Inclusion criteria comprised videos in English, less than 20 minutes in duration, and relevance to syphilis. Two dermatologists independently rated 98 eligible videos using DISCERN, ANDI, and GQS. Statistical analyses included χ2 tests, mean comparisons, and interclass correlation.
resultsTikTok videos exhibited higher mean views (222,519 ± 412,746) compared with YouTube (127,527 ± 223,622). However, TikTok videos had lower mean GQS (2.3 ± 0.9), ANDI (2.19 ± 0.99), and DISCERN (28.7 ± 6.56) scores compared with YouTube (GQS: 2.9 ± 1.1, ANDI: 2.90 ± 0.97, DISCERN: 38.8 ± 9). Nonprofessional uploaders were 40.8% on TikTok, whereas the value was 53.1% on YouTube.
conclusionThis study reveals disparities in the quality and accuracy of syphilis-related content on TikTok and YouTube. Despite higher popularity on TikTok, content quality, as assessed by DISCERN, ANDI, and GQS, was generally lower compared with YouTube. Targeted interventions are needed to improve the reliability of syphilis-related information on social media 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.