ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Cross-platform analysis of atrial fibrillation scientific videos: using composite index and a basic assessment scale.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bilibili and TikTok heart failure short video evaluation: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Assessing the quality of general anesthesia-related short videos on TikTok: a cross-sectional study.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Article
- Assessing quality and reliability of online videos on peritoneal dialysis: a Douyin video-based study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Quality and Reliability of Deep Venous Thrombosis-Related Videos on TikTok and Bilibili.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
- Information quality of videos related to adolescent depression on social media platforms: a comparative study of TikTok and BiliBili.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Assessing the content and quality of gout-related videos on video platforms: A cross-sectional study.Digital healthArticle
- Quality and reliability of Alzheimer's disease videos on Douyin and Bilibili: A cross-sectional content analysis study.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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Currently, video platforms were filled with many low-quality, uncensored scientific videos, and patients who utilize the Internet to gain knowledge about specific diseases are vulnerable to being misled and possibly delaying treatment as a result. Therefore, a large sample survey on the content quality and popularity of online scientific videos was of great significance for future targeted reforms. Objective: This study utilized normalization data analysis methods and a basic assessment scale, providing a new aspect for future research across multiple platforms with large sample sizes and for the development of video content quality assessment scales. Methods: This cross-sectional study analyzed a sample of 331 videos retrieved from YouTube, BiliBili, TikTok, and Douyin on June 13, 2024. In the analysis of atrial fibrillation scientific videos across four social media platforms, comprehensive metrics and a basic scoring scale revealed associations between platforms, creators, and the popularity and content quality of the videos. Data analysis employed principal component analysis, normalization data processing, non-parametric tests, paired t-tests, and negative binomial regression. Results: Analysis of the user engagement data using a composite index revealed a significant difference in the popularity of videos from publishers with a medical background (z = -4.285, Conclusion: This analysis of atrial fibrillation information on multiple social media platforms found that people prefer videos from publishers with a medical background. However, it appeared that these publishers did not sufficiently create high-quality, suitable videos for the public, and the platforms seemed to lack a rigorous censorship system and policy support for high-quality content. Moreover, the normalized data processing method and the basic assessment scale that we attempted to use in this study provided new ideas for future large-sample surveys and content quality review.
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.