ArticleCureus2025
Comparative Quality Analysis of Bullous Pemphigoid Information Across Six Social Media Platforms.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Social media has changed the digital health landscape, altering how the public consumes medical information and sparking concerns about the reliability of medical information. This study aims to assess the quality of online health information related to bullous pemphigoid by evaluating content type, information reliability, and user engagement across different social media platforms, using the Quality Evaluation Scoring Tool (QUEST) and Discerning the Quality of Written Consumer Health Information (DISCERN) questionnaires, quantitative tools designed to measure health information quality. Among the six social media platforms analyzed, educational content was most prevalent on YouTube (Google LLC, Mountain View, California, United States) (90.0%, n=10) and Threads (Meta Platforms, Inc., Menlo Park, California, United States) (100.0%, n=3), while TikTok (ByteDance Ltd., Beijing, China) (n=20) featured 60.0% educational and 30.0% patient experience content. X (X Corp., Bastrop, Texas, United States) (n=18) demonstrated the highest reliability, with a mean QUEST score of 16.8 (SD: 4.5) and a mean DISCERN score of 28.9 (SD: 6.7). In contrast, TikTok had the lowest reliability, with a mean QUEST score of 9.0 (SD: 3.0) and a mean DISCERN score of 20.1 (SD: 3.0). Dunn's test with Bonferroni correction revealed that TikTok scored significantly lower than X in both QUEST (Mean Difference: -7.83, p < 0.0001) and DISCERN scores (Mean Difference: -8.83, p <0.001). Instagram (n=9) outperformed TikTok in QUEST scores (Mean Difference: 6.66, p <0.001. These findings indicate that X offers the most reliable health information, whereas TikTok consistently ranks lower in reliability.
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.