ArticleScientific reports2025
Assessing the content and quality of GI bleeding information on Bilibili, TikTok, and YouTube: a cross-sectional study.
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 28 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
28 citing papers in PubMed.
- Content characteristics and information quality of flap transplantation surgery videos on TikTok and Bilibili: A cross-sectional study.Medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluating the reliability and quality of lupus nephritis educational content on TikTok and Bilibili: a cross-sectional content analysis.Lupus science & medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Quality assessment of public education short videos on robot-assisted cholecystectomy and analysis of audience preferences.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- TikTok, RedNote, and Bilibili as sources of medical information on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a cross-platform content analysis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Assessing the content and quality of gastrointestinal endoscopy videos on TikTok, Bilibili, and Kwai: a cross - sectional study.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Information quality and reliability of pheochromocytoma-related videos on tiktok and Kwai: a cross-sectional study.BMC urology · 2026Article
- The quality and reliability of short videos about cervical spondylosis on TikTok and Redbook: a cross-sectional study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- The Quality and Reliability of Short Videos About Psoriatic Arthritis on Bilibili and TikTok: Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of rheumatic diseases · 2026Article
- Quality, content structure, and reliability of prostatitis-related information on short-video platforms: a cross-platform analysis of TikTok and Bilibili.BMC urology · 2026Article
- Assessing the reliability and quality of avascular necrosis of the femoral head content on social media: a cross-sectional content analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Assessing the content and quality of deep vein thrombosis on Bilibili, TikTok, and YouTube: a cross-sectional study.Thrombosis journal · 2026Article
- A cross-sectional analysis of the quality and reliability of Wilson disease videos on Bilibili, Douyin, and Kuaishou.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Bilibili and TikTok as sources of information on atrophic gastritis and the quality of their content.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A cross-sectional analysis of the quality and characteristics of sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome videos on YouTube, Bilibili, and TikTok.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Agreement between artificial intelligence and expert evaluation in assessing the quality of asthma health education videos on YouTube and Bilibili: cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a significant clinical issue that is commonly discussed on social media platforms. Despite the widespread availability of health information videos, the quality and comprehensiveness of these videos vary greatly, posing potential risks to public health. This study evaluates the content and quality of GI bleeding-related videos on TikTok, Bilibili, and YouTube. A total of 300 GI bleeding-related videos were collected and analyzed from TikTok, Bilibili, and YouTube. The videos were categorized based on the uploader's background (health professionals vs. non-health professionals). Key metrics such as likes, comments, video duration, and quality scores (GQS, JAMA, and modified DISCERN) were compared. Simultaneously, the content of the videos was analyzed across six aspects: definition, symptoms, risk factors, tests, treatment, and outcomes. A total of 300 GI bleeding-related videos were analyzed, with 196 (65.3%) uploaded by health professionals and 104 (34.7%) by non-health professionals. TikTok videos received significantly more likes and comments but were shorter in duration compared to those on Bilibili and YouTube (p < 0.05). The overall quality and reliability of the videos were relatively low, with median DISCERN and GQS scores of 2 (IQR: 2-3) and 3 (IQR: 2-3), respectively. Videos from health professionals exhibited higher reliability and quality, with median DISCERN scores of 3 (IQR: 3-4) and GQS scores of 3 (IQR: 3-4). The overall quality and comprehensiveness of GI bleeding-related videos on social media platforms are unsatisfactory, with many low-quality videos still prevalent. Although videos from health professionals score higher in quality and reliability, their content comprehensiveness is not significantly better than those from non-health professionals. Efforts should be intensified to improve the content and quality of GI bleeding videos, raise public awareness, and promote patient self-management.
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.