ArticleScientific reports2025
Information quality assessment and user engagement prediction of short videos about diabetic kidney disease on TikTok and bilibili.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality assessment of public education short videos on robot-assisted cholecystectomy and analysis of audience preferences.Journal of robotic surgery · 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 on the quality of IgA nephropathy videos on short video platforms.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Quality, interaction, and platform-creator heterogeneity of DR short videos on Douyin and Bilibili: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The quality and reliability evaluation of Parkinson's disease-related short videos on social short video platforms: cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Quality and Reliability of Deep Venous Thrombosis-Related Videos on TikTok and Bilibili.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
- Quality and reliability of semaglutide-related health information on Chinese short-video platforms: a cross-sectional study of Bilibili and TikTok.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- The quality evaluation of information in hospice and palliative care short videos on Douyin (TikTok's Chinese version) and Bilibili: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in digital health · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
With the growing availability of short video platforms such as TikTok and Bilibili, patients with diabetic kidney disease (DKD) are increasingly seeking health information through these channels. However, the quality and user engagement of DKD-related content on these platforms have not been systematically evaluated. This exploratory cross-sectional study assessed the quality and reliability of DKD-related short videos and examined predictors of user engagement. On April 4, 2025, the top 100 DKD-related videos were collected from each platform. Content quality and reliability were assessed using the Global Quality Score (GQS), the modified DISCERN (mDISCERN), and the Medical Quality Video Evaluation Tool (MQ-VET). An eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) model was employed to predict the number of likes and identify associated predictors. Despite being shorter in length, TikTok videos received significantly more likes, saves, shares, and comments than those on Bilibili (all p < 0.001), and scored higher on GQS and MQ-VET, with no significant difference in mDISCERN scores. Videos uploaded by professionals generally showed higher quality. Follower count, video length, and days since upload were the strongest predictors of engagement. Overall, TikTok videos exhibited higher quality and engagement than those on Bilibili; however, given the algorithm-driven sampling, uploader-level clustering, and tool adaptation, these findings should be interpreted as descriptive and exploratory rather than causal.
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.