ArticleInternational journal of dermatology2025
Evaluating the Quality of TikTok Videos on Vitiligo: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in International journal of dermatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Content characteristics and information quality of flap transplantation surgery videos on TikTok and Bilibili: A cross-sectional study.Medicine · 2026Article
- The quality and content of cerebral aneurysm related short videos on Douyin: a cross-sectional observational study.Scientific reports · 2026Observational
- Evaluating the information quality and reliability of ovarian cancer educational content on TikTok and Bilibili: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The quality and content of gonorrhea-related short videos on TikTok: A cross-sectional study.Digital healthArticle
- The quality and reliability of keloid-related videos on TikTok: A cross-sectional study.Digital healthArticle
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionVitiligo, an autoimmune disorder causing skin depigmentation, significantly impacts quality of life. With over 1 billion users, TikTok has become a major platform for health information dissemination. However, its engagement-driven algorithm raises concerns about misinformation. This study evaluates the accuracy of the most-liked vitiligo-related TikTok videos and examines the platform's role in health education.
methodsWe retrieved TikTok videos using "#Vitiligo" and analyzed the first 100 videos that met inclusion criteria. Videos were categorized into healthcare providers (HP) and non-healthcare providers (NHP). Content characteristics and engagement metrics were extracted. Three independent reviewers assessed quality using multiple assessment tools-Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT), modified DISCERN (mDISCERN), Video Information and Quality Index (VIQI), and Global Quality Score (GQS). A novel tool, V-TRACE, was developed to evaluate (1) clinical aspects (pathophysiology, clinical presentation, treatment, and autoimmune comorbidities) and (2) social aspects (body image and representation of people of color).
resultsOf 100 videos analyzed, 25% were from HP, demonstrating significantly higher quality across all metrics. HP videos focused on education (96% vs. 20%, p < 0.01) and scored higher on mDISCERN (2.66 vs. 1.66, p < 0.01), GQS (2.66 vs. 1.6, p < 0.01), and VIQI (12.33 vs. 10.00, p < 0.01). NHP produced 75% of videos, received higher engagement (p = 0.04), and had a more positive tone (30.7% vs. 12%, p = 0.05).
conclusionVitiligo-related TikTok content lacks reliability. HPs produce higher-quality content, while NHPs dominate engagement and potentially spread misinformation. There is a need for more evidence-based, engaging content to improve patient education on the platform.
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.