Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40097555›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Evaluating the quality of TikTok videos on coronary artery disease using various scales to examine correlations with video characteristics and high-quality content.

Peng Hao, Guixin Liu, Shuang Lian, Jiaxu Huang, Lin Zhao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Peng HaoDepartment of Cardiology, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100020, China.
Guixin LiuBeijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100029, China.
Shuang LianGeriatric Center, Affiliated Hospital of Inner Mongolia Medical University, Hohhot City, 010059, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, China.
Jiaxu HuangMudan People's Hospital, Heze City, 274000, Shandong Province, China.
Lin ZhaoDepartment of Cardiology, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100020, China. trichina2007@126.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a major public health concern, yet reliable sources of relevant information are limited. TikTok, a popular social media platform in China, hosts diverse health-related videos, including those on CAD; however, their quality varies and is largely unassessed. Objective This study aimed to investigate the quality of CAD-related videos on TikTok and explore the correlation between video characteristics and high-quality videos. Methods A total of 122 CAD-related short videos on TikTok were analyzed on July 18, 2023. Basic video information and sources were extracted. Two evaluators independently scored each video using DISCERN (a health information quality scale), the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) and the Health on the Net (HONcode) scales. Videos were categorized into four groups based on their source, with the medical professional group further categorized by job titles. Simple linear analysis was used to examine the linear relationship across different scales and to explore the relationship between video characteristics (video length, time since posting, the number of "likes", comments and "favorites", and the number of followers of the video creator) and different scales. Results AQVideos were categorized into four groups based on their source: medical professionals (n = 98, 80.3%), user-generated content (n = 11, 9.0%), news programs (n = 4, 3.3%), and health agencies or organizations (n = 9, 7.4%). The score of DISCERN was 46.5 ± 7.6/80, the score rate of PEMAT was 79.2 ± 12.6%/100%, and the number of score items for HONcode was 1.4 ± 0.6/8. In Sect. 1 of DISCERN, user-generated content scored highest (29.1 ± 3.6), followed by medical professionals (28.6 ± 2.4), health agencies or organizations (28.0 ± 0.0) and news programs (28.0 ± 0.0)(P = 0.047). In HONcode, most videos met only one or two of the eight evaluation criteria. PEMAT scores varied slightly across categories without significant differences (P = 0.758). Medical professionals were further divided into senior (n = 69, 70.4%) and intermediate (n = 29, 29.6%) groups, with intermediate professionals scoring higher in DISCERN (P < 0.001). In simple linear analysis models, no linear correlation was found between DISCERN and PEMAT scores (P = 0.052). Time since posting on TikTok was negatively correlated with DISCERN (P = 0.021) and PEMAT scores (P = 0.037), and the number of "favorites" was positively correlated to DISCERN score (P = 0.007). Conclusion The quality of CAD-related videos on China's TikTok is inconsistent and varies across different evaluation scales. Videos posted by medical professionals with intermediate titles tended to offer higher quality, more up-to-date content, as reflected by higher "favorite" counts. HONcode may not be suitable for short video evaluation due to its low score rate, while DISCERN and PEMAT may be effective tools for short video evaluation. However, their lack of consistency in evaluation dimensions highlight the need for a tailored scoring system for short videos.

Indexed as

Coronary Artery DiseaseSocial MediaVideo RecordingChinaHumansPatient Education as TopicDISCERNHONcodePEMATQuality evaluationShort videoTikTok

Identifiers

PMID40097555
PMCPMC11914095

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.