ArticleBMC public health2025
Information quality of videos related to esophageal cancer on tiktok, kwai, and bilibili: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 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
66 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the quality and reliability of rotator cuff injury related videos on Bilibili and TikTok: A cross-sectional analysis.Medicine · 2026Article
- Baloxavir marboxil-related information on Douyin and Xiaohongshu: a cross-sectional analysis of content, misinformation, and user engagement.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Quality, Reliability, and Viewer Engagement of YouTube Videos on Esophageal Cancer: A Cross-Sectional Study.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Quality and reliability of osteoporosis-related health information on short-video platforms: a multi-source cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Article
- Quality and content evaluation of anal fistula information on TikTok and Bilibili: A cross-sectional study.Medicine · 2026Article
- Quality assessment of ADHD-related short videos on Chinese social media: A cross-sectional study.Medicine · 2026Article
- Quality assessment of public education short videos on robot-assisted cholecystectomy and analysis of audience preferences.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Quality and reliability of anxiety disorder-related short videos on TikTok and Bilibili: A cross-sectional study.Medicine · 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 Psoriatic Arthritis on Bilibili and TikTok: Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of rheumatic diseases · 2026Article
- TikTok, Xiaohongshu, and Bilibili as sources of medical information on lung cancer: a multi-platform content evaluation.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Can social media videos meet patients' information needs for benign prostatic hyperplasia? A repeated cross-sectional study.BMC urology · 2026Article
- Article
- Alcohol-related health information on Chinese short-video platforms: a cross-sectional content analysis of Douyin and Bilibili.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Quality and reliability of pediatric inguinal hernia treatment information on TikTok and Bilibili.BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
- A cross-sectional study on the quality of pediatric autism-related videos on short video platforms.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Assessing the quality of general anesthesia-related short videos on TikTok: a cross-sectional study.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Article
- Quality, reliability, and treatment misinformation risk of epilepsy content on Chinese short-video platforms TikTok (Douyin) and Bilibili: a cross-sectional analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The quality of video information related to smoking cessation on mainstream short-video platforms in China: a cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2026Article
6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
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
Abstract
backgroundEsophageal cancer typically lacks specific early symptoms, leading to late-stage diagnosis and poor prognosis, with an overall low 5-year survival rate. However, early detection and timely intervention can significantly improve the 5-year survival rate, underscoring the importance of prevention, screening, and early intervention. Short video platforms are increasingly utilized for health communication, offering opportunities to disseminate medical knowledge. However, the quality and reliability of health-related content, particularly for diseases like esophageal cancer, remain under explored.
objectiveThis study aimed to systematically evaluate the quality, reliability, completeness, and engagement of esophageal cancer-related videos on three popular short video platform: Bilibili, TikTok, and Kwai, to identify platform-specific strengths and limitations in disseminating health information.
methodsA total of 311 esophageal cancer-related videos were analyzed. Video assessment was assessed using 4 standardized scoring framework including General Quality Scores (GQS) for general quality, the DISCERN for reliability, Completeness Score (CS) for comprehensive information, Engagement Score (ES) for understandability and entertainment value of the video. Video features (source, category, content), user's behavior (likes, shares, comments) were also collected. Cross-platform comparisons were conducted to identify disparities in content quality and user interaction.
resultsThis study analyzed 311 esophageal cancer-related videos on Bilibili, TikTok, and Kwai. Video quality varied significantly across platforms, with Bilibili showing the highest DISCERN (5.46), GQS (2.97) and CS (3.64), while TikTok videos achieved the highest ES (2.88) and engagement metrics (e.g., likes and collections, p < 0.001). Kwai videos had the lowest scores across all measures. Content focused primarily on "symptoms" and "treatment," with Bilibili offering more comprehensive coverage. Correlation analysis revealed a positive association between video quality and engagement on Bilibili but a negative association on TikTok (e.g., GQS and likes, r=-0.251, P = 0.009).
conclusionsThe quality of esophageal cancer-related videos across Bilibili, TikTok, and Kwai is suboptimal, with notable quality disparities among the platforms. Users on platforms other than Bilibili show limited ability to identify or prefer higher-quality content. This study underscores the potential of short-video platforms for esophageal cancer public health education, but highlights the need for improvements in content quality, ethical standards, and platform governance to address health equity concerns.
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.