ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Professionalism vs. engagement: quality of SSc information on WeChat.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A cross-sectional analysis of the quality and reliability of Wilson disease videos on Bilibili, Douyin, and Kuaishou.Scientific reports · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a rare autoimmune disease, and WeChat is a major source of health information in China. This study assesses the quality of SSc information on WeChat to understand its impact on public knowledge and engagement. Methods: A total of 375 articles from 9 WeChat public accounts were systematically analyzed using the DISCERN and Global Quality Scale (GQS) tools. Article quality was evaluated based on source credibility, content accuracy, and user engagement, including metrics such as views, likes, and comments. Results: Individual authors posted 50% of the articles, while non-profit organizations posted 21%, with non-profits providing higher quality content. Disease knowledge dominated (52.8%), yet readers showed higher interest in policy interpretation and rehabilitation. The average DISCERN and GQS scores were 28.96 and 1.62, indicating low quality across articles. Conclusion: While WeChat facilitates SSc information dissemination, the overall quality is lacking. Enhancing professionalism and interactivity on health information platforms like WeChat could better meet the needs of patients and the public for reliable information.
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.