ArticleBMJ open2025
Assessing the quality of myopia prevention videos on Chinese short video platforms: a cross-sectional content analysis by source.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the reliability and quality of avascular necrosis of the femoral head content on social media: a cross-sectional content analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Alcohol-related health information on Chinese short-video platforms: a cross-sectional content analysis of Douyin and Bilibili.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A cross-sectional study assessing the reliability and quality of educational videos on hydrocephalus available on TikTok and Bilibili.Scientific reports · 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
- Content, quality, and reliability of gout-related videos on TikTok and Bilibili: A cross-sectional study.Medicine · 2026Article
- 92-Plex Inflammatory Proteomic Signatures in Aqueous Humor of High Myopia and Candidate Biomarkers.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Quality and reliability of semaglutide content on different Chinese short video platforms: a study focusing on side effects.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Educational performance of TikTok short videos for age related macular degeneration and its link to user engagement.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Videos in short video sharing platforms as a source of information on bipolar disorder: a cross-sectional content analysis study.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Review
- Article
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe prevalence of myopia has been rising, whereas prevention efforts have shown limited success. Educational short videos have become crucial sources for health information; however, their quality regarding myopia prevention is uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the quality and content of short videos on myopia prevention disseminated via major Chinese short video platforms and compare content differences between healthcare professionals and non-professional creators.
designA cross-sectional content analysis.
settingTop-ranked videos from three dominant Chinese platforms (TikTok, Kwai and BiliBili) in 6-10 August 2024.
participants284 eligible videos screened from 300 initial results using predefined exclusion criteria, including 97 videos from TikTok, 94 from BiliBili and 93 from Kwai.
methodsVideos were assessed using the Global Quality Scale and a modified DISCERN tool. Content completeness was evaluated across six predefined domains. Videos were categorised by source (healthcare professionals vs non-healthcare professionals), and intergroup differences were statistically analysed.
resultsOf the 284 videos, 48.9% were uploaded by healthcare professionals and 51.1% by non-healthcare professionals. Overall video quality was suboptimal. Videos by ophthalmologists had significantly higher quality scores than those by other creators. Healthcare professionals focused more on definitions, symptoms and risk factors of myopia, whereas non-healthcare professionals emphasised prevention and treatment outcomes. Ophthalmologists more frequently recommended corrective lenses (including both standard spectacles and specially designed lenses for myopia control) and low-dose atropine, whereas non-healthcare professionals favoured vision training.
conclusionsSignificant quality gaps exist in myopia prevention videos. Healthcare professionals, particularly ophthalmologists, produce higher-quality and more comprehensive content. Strategic engagement by healthcare professionals in digital health communication and platform-level quality control is needed to improve public health literacy on myopia.
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.