ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
The reliability and quality of short videos as health information of guidance for bowel sounds: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Performance of artificial intelligence chatbots in providing feeding management and oral health guidance for children with cleft lip and palate: ChatGPT 5.2 vs Gemini 3 Pro.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bowel sounds are a valuable indicator of monitoring and reflecting intestinal motility. Information about bowel sounds is significant for assessing physical condition. Short video-sharing platforms facilitate such information but must be validated regarding the quality and reliability of the content. Objective: This study aimed to assess the reliability and quality of bowel sounds-related information available on Chinese short video-sharing platforms. Methods: A total of 132 video samples were collected on the three most popular Chinese video sharing platforms: TikTok, Bilibili, and WeChat. Each video was assessed by two independent physicians in terms of content comprehensiveness, quality (using the Global Quality Score) and reliability (using the DISCERN tool). Furthermore, comparisons were made across different video sources. Results: Out of 132 videos analyzed, 78 (59.09%) were uploaded by medical professionals, including gastroenterologists, non-gastroenterologists, and clinical nutritionists, while 54 (40.91%) were shared by non-medical professionals such as science bloggers, nonprofit organizations and patients. Gastroenterologists-uploaded videos received the highest engagement, with median likes of 150 (IQR: 31-1,198), favorites of 90 (IQR: 19-412) and share of 50 (14-225). And in general, Medical professionals'videos generally showed higher engagement, particularly those by Gastroenterologists, compared to non-medical professionals. The median The GQS and modified DISCERN tool were used to assess video quality and reliability respectively, with medical professionals scoring higher on both metrics ( Conclusion: The study shows that medical professionals generally provide better and more accurate results than non-professionals. Videos uploaded by clinical nutritionists offer more comprehensive health education and treatment options. To ensure public access to reliable information, it's important to encourage medical professionals to produce the videos and also basic standards must be established.
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.