Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41174620›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2025

Evaluating the quality and reliability of cervical cancer related videos on YouTube, Bilibili, and Tiktok: a cross-sectional analysis.

Shiyuan Qi, Qi Chen, Jinghong Liang, Xiaohui Yang, Xiaomao Li

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Comment on "Analysis of Quality, Reliability, and Content of Cervical Cancer-Related Chinese Videos on TikTok".Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Shiyuan Qi *Department of Gynecology, the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, No. 600 Tianhe Road, Tianhe District, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, China.
Qi Chen *Department of Gynecology, the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, No. 600 Tianhe Road, Tianhe District, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, China.
Jinghong LiangDepartment of Gynecology, the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, No. 600 Tianhe Road, Tianhe District, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, China.
Xiaohui YangDepartment of Gynecology, the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, No. 600 Tianhe Road, Tianhe District, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, China. Yangxh26@mail.sysu.edu.cn.
Xiaomao LiDepartment of Gynecology, the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, No. 600 Tianhe Road, Tianhe District, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, China. Lixmao@mail.sysu.edu.cn.

Funding

Guangdong Province Appropriate Technology Promotion Scientific Research Fund 03A014001000003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCervical cancer continues to pose a significant global health burden for women, especially in low-resource settings. Although HPV vaccination and screening programs are available, public awareness remains limited. Social media platforms have become major sources of health information; however, the quality of content varies considerably. This study assesses the quality, reliability, and dissemination patterns of cervical cancer-related videos on YouTube, Bilibili, and TikTok, with a focus on how uploader characteristics influence information accuracy.

methodsOn February 21, 2025, we retrieved the top 100 videos using the keyword "cervical cancer" on YouTube, and its Chinese equivalent "" on Bilibili and TikTok. Two independent reviewers evaluated video quality using the Global Quality Score (GQS), Video Information and Quality Index (VIQI), modified DISCERN (mDISCERN), and Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). Inter-rater agreement was assessed, and statistical analysis was performed using non-parametric tests and Spearman correlation.

resultsA total of 84 YouTube videos, 82 Bilibili videos, and 91 TikTok videos were included. TikTok videos showed significantly higher user engagement than those on other platforms (p<0.001), but scored significantly lower in GQS, VIQI, mDISCERN, and PEMAT evaluations (p<0.001). Videos uploaded by professionals consistently received higher quality scores than those from non-professionals. (p<0.001) Although TikTok had higher uploader activity, its content was largely based on personal experiences, lacking scientific rigor and practical guidance. The video quality on TikTok and Bilibili is negatively correlated with their interactivity.

conclusionsThe three platforms show distinct differences in how cervical cancer-related health information is disseminated. TikTok demonstrates superior dissemination and engagement performance, whereas YouTube provides higher content quality and credibility. These findings underscore the importance of leveraging each platform's strengths to promote evidence-based health communication.

Indexed as

Information DisseminationSocial MediaUterine Cervical NeoplasmsVideo RecordingCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansReproducibility of ResultsCervical cancerHealth communicationPublic educationPublic healthSocial media

Identifiers

PMID41174620
PMCPMC12577082

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.