ArticleBMC oral health2025
Beyond virality: evaluating evidence-based content delivery in social media-based pediatric orthodontic education.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient perspective regarding the role of social media, offline reputation, and practitioner characteristics in orthodontist selection: a cross-sectional study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Information completeness, sentiment, and engagement of orthodontic patient experience content on Chinese social media: a cross-sectional study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Evaluating pulpitis-related content on Chinese social media: platform comparison, dental practitioner impact and associated factors.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Content Gaps and Informational Quality of TikTok and Bilibili Videos on Pit and Fissure Sealing in China: A Cross-Sectional Study.Oral health & preventive dentistry · 2026Article
- Quality, content structure, and reliability of prostatitis-related information on short-video platforms: a cross-platform analysis of TikTok and Bilibili.BMC urology · 2026Article
- Assessing the reliability and quality of avascular necrosis of the femoral head content on social media: a cross-sectional content analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Information Quality, Content Scope, and Audience Engagement of Popular Turkish Instagram Posts on Tooth Whitening: A Cross-Sectional Content Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Quality, reliability, and content completeness of Chinese-language short videos on impacted wisdom teeth on TikTok and Bilibili: a cross-sectional study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Quality and reliability of sarcopenia-related videos on BiliBili and TikTok: a cross-sectional content analysis study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Parental anxiety in China's social media marketing of early orthodontics.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- The reliability and quality of short videos as a source of dietary guidance for cardiovascular disease: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Changes and health inequalities in the global burden of periodontal diseases from 1990 to 2021: A population-based study.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMalocclusion, affecting over 260 million Chinese children, demands early orthodontic intervention to address both physiological and psychosocial impacts. While social media platforms have become primary sources of health guidance for parents, their algorithm-driven ecosystems often prioritize engagement over scientific rigor. Content creators, including unqualified influencers, frequently disseminate unverified claims about treatment timing, methods, and outcomes. Such misinformation may exacerbate parental anxiety, or promote non-evidence-based interventions. This study evaluates the quality of high-engagement videos across platforms, identifies systemic gaps enabling misinformation proliferation, and proposes safeguards to align content dissemination with evidence-based practices.
methodsA cross-sectional analysis was conducted on 200 top-viewed videos (100 per platform) retrieved via keyword searches on TikTok and Rednote. Videos were assessed using three validated tools: Global Quality Score (GQS), JAMA benchmark criteria, and a Modified DISCERN score. Statistical analyses included Mann-Whitney U tests, Spearman correlations, and inter-rater reliability assessments.
resultsTikTok videos exhibited significantly higher engagement (likes, shares) and superior quality scores (GQS: 2.89 vs. 2.32; mDISCERN: 1.75 vs. 1.20) compared to Rednote (all P < 0.01). Orthodontist-produced content scored higher in JAMA and mDISCERN across both platforms (P < 0.01). On Rednote, quality metrics (GQS, mDISCERN) correlated positively with user engagement and video duration (R: 0.27–0.49, P < 0.01), whereas TikTok showed inverse trends between quality and engagement (R: -0.23 to -0.35, P < 0.05). Inter-rater reliability was excellent (ICC: 0.780–1.000).
conclusionsDespite higher engagement metrics, TikTok demonstrated superior video quality compared to Rednote, yet both platforms exhibited concerning inconsistencies in orthodontic information accuracy, a reflection of systemic algorithm-driven health misinformation risks. Content from credentialed professionals consistently outperformed non-expert sources in reliability, underscoring the public health dangers of prioritizing influencer-generated material lacking scientific validation. Strategic integration of medical expertise into content algorithms, standardization of quality verification frameworks, and enhanced public health literacy are imperative to counteract misinformation propagation and align social media’s educational potential with evidence-based orthodontic care.
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.