ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Current status of short video as a source of information on lung cancer: a cross-sectional content analysis study.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Behavioral Determinants Potentially Relevant to First-Witness Responses in Prehospital Stroke Care: A COM-B-Based Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- TikTok, Xiaohongshu, and Bilibili as sources of medical information on lung cancer: a multi-platform content evaluation.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- The quality of video information related to smoking cessation on mainstream short-video platforms in China: a cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Quality and reliability of femoral neck fracture educational short videos: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Understanding TikTok's Role in Young-Onset Colorectal Cancer Awareness and Education.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2025Article
- Assessment of the reliability and quality of pancreatic cancer related short videos on mainstream platforms: cross-sectional study.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Quality and Reliability of Adolescent Sexuality Education on Chinese Video Platforms: Sentiment-Topic Analysis and Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the quality and reliability of Chinese content about orthognathic surgery on BiliBili and TikTok: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Quality and Dissemination of Uterine Fibroid Health Information on TikTok and Bilibili: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Quality and reliability of Chinese short videos on TikTok related to chronic renal failure: cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Assessment of the content and quality of palliative care videos on Chinese social media: A cross-sectional analysis.Digital healthArticle
- Article
- Quality of cataract-related videos on TikTok and its influencing factors: A cross-sectional study.Digital healthArticle
- Quality of ovarian cancer videos on TikTok, Rednote, and WeChat: A public health perspective.Digital healthArticle
- Short videos platforms as sources of health information about cervical cancer screening: A content and quality analysis.Digital healthArticle
- Bilibili and TikTok as sources of medical information on osteonecrosis of the femoral head: A cross-platform content analysis.Digital healthArticle
- A cross-sectional study of the quality and reliability of renal cell carcinoma-related short videos on Bilibili and TikTok.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The morbidity and mortality rates of lung cancer continue to rise, leading to a significant disease burden. Health education on lung cancer serves as an effective approach for prevention and treatment. With the increasing popularity of the Internet, an escalating number of patients are turning to video platforms for health information. Short videos facilitate better absorption and retention of information, thus becoming the primary channel for health education communication. However, the quality of information provided in videos on these platforms remains uncertain. Therefore, this study aims to assess the information quality pertaining to lung cancer in short videos available on a Chinese video platform. Methods: Lung cancer-related videos on two short video platforms (TikTok and Kwai) were screened, and only Chinese (Mandarin) videos were included. The Global Quality Score (GQS) and modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) tools were then used to evaluate the quality and reliability of the information. A comparative analysis was conducted on videos from various sources. Additionally, correlation analysis was employed to investigate the factors influencing video quality. Results: After screening, a total of 186 videos were included. The median GQS score and mDISCERN score were 3 (IQR: 3-4) and 2 (IQR: 2-4), respectively. A total of 44.1% of the lung cancer videos provided a comprehensive explanation of the symptoms, while only 3.2% fully explanation the complications associated with lung cancer. Health professionals, particularly specialists, demonstrated higher quality video information compared to individual users ( Conclusion: The information quality of the 186 videos screened by the two platforms in this study was generally unsatisfactory. However, videos provided by experts were deemed relatively reliable, with video duration being closely associated with information quality. Therefore, it is crucial to meticulously screen high-quality and dependable videos on the platform in order to effectively guide lung cancer prevention and treatment.
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.