ArticleUrolithiasis2025
An examination of the quality of kidney stone information on YouTube and TikTok.
Article in Urolithiasis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The current status and future directions of short video dissemination on urolithiasis via the TikTok platform: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A cross-sectional analysis of the quality and reliability of Wilson disease videos on Bilibili, Douyin, and Kuaishou.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Which over-the-counter herbal supplements are searched online? A review of internet trends, interest, and lithogenic potential of herbal health ingredients.Nutrition and health · 2026Article
- YouTube and TikTok as patient resources: assessment of online video content on extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.Central European journal of urology · 2026Article
- Knee osteoarthritis health information on China's TikTok: a cross-sectional analysis of content quality and public health relevance.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Educational performance of TikTok short videos for age related macular degeneration and its link to user engagement.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Quality and reliability of kidney stone information on TikTok and Bilibili: A cross-sectional study.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Social media is increasingly consulted by patients for health-related information. The quality of this information is unknown and unregulated. This study aimed to investigate the quality of kidney stones information on two popular video platforms, YouTube and TikTok, and examine factors related to its quality. A search using keywords of "kidney stones" alongside "information, prevention, treatment" was used across YouTube and TikTok. The top 50 videos on each platform were rated by 4 independent reviewers on: general information, epidemiology, symptoms/presentation, treatment, and prevention. The American Urological Association's kidney stone curriculum was utilised as the benchmark for quality. The total number of views across the 100 videos was over 46 million. Overall, 91% of videos were educational in terms of genre. Misinformation was present in 34% of TikTok and 2% of YouTube videos. YouTube received significantly higher quality ratings across all parameters bar prevention (z's>-4.79 p's < 0.001); however, less than 50% of YouTube videos were rated as good quality. There was no association between quality and the number of likes or views across platforms (p's > 0.3). The quality of information presented across platforms was very variable with over half of videos considered poor quality. Given the high usage of social media as a source of health information it is important that healthcare providers and the general public are aware of the limits of information available on both platforms and continued efforts are made to develop high quality videos suitable for patient consumption.
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.