ArticleScientific reports2025
The quality and reliability of short videos about amblyopia on TikTok and bilibili: cross-sectional study.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the content quality and trustworthiness of snakebite envenomation videos on social media platforms: insights from TikTok and Bilibili.Tropical medicine and health · 2026Article
- Article
- Short-form video platforms as a source of ankylosing spondylitis information: a cross-sectional content analysis.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Article
- Insights into the quality and guideline consistency of dry eye disease treatment videos on Chinese short-video platforms.Digital healthArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Amblyopia is the main cause of monocular vision loss in children. Early recognition and treatment are important to prevent vision loss. As public health awareness increases, short videos platforms like TikTok and Bilibili are increasingly being used to disseminate health information. However, due to the lack of peer review and supervision, short-video platforms tend to disseminate incorrect and incomplete health information. At present, the quality of videos on amblyopia has not been systematically evaluated. To evaluate the quality of videos related to amblyopia, this cross-sectional study used the Chinese term "amblyopia" as the search keyword to collect videos from TikTok and Bilibili. After applying exclusion criteria, 185 videos (94 from TikTok, 91 from Bilibili) were analyzed. Data on video length and characteristics, including engagement metrics (likes, collections, comments and shares) were collected. The assessment tools including the Global Quality Score (GQS), the modified DISCERN, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria and the Video Information and Quality Index (VIQI) were used to evaluate video reliability and quality. Through statistical analysis, the quality and reliability among two platforms, video sources, and video quality were evaluated. On the TikTok, videos were mainly uploaded by specialists with accounting for 71.3%. While on the Bilibili, videos were mainly uploaded by individual users with accounting for 45%. TikTok videos scored higher in quality (GQS: 2.862 ± 1.033; modified DISCERN: 2.277 ± 0.8848; VIQI: 10.88 ± 2.531) compared to Bilibili (GQS: 2.242 ± 1.089 p < 0.0001; modified DISCERN: 1.846 ± 0.8154 p = 0.001; VIQI: 6.571 ± 1.910 p < 0.0001). Specialist-uploaded videos performed notably better in quality, with GQS, modified DISCERN, JAMA and VIQI scores of 3(3-4), 3(2-3), 3(2-3) and 11(9-13), respectively. On both platforms, the topic of amblyopia treatment was the most frequently discussed one, while the topic of prevention received the lowest level of discussion. The TikTok videos demonstrated a significantly higher level of audience engagement compared to Bilibili. Correlation analysis revealed that there were strong correlations between interaction data, but interaction data had no correlation with GQS, modified DISCERN, JAMA and VIQI scores. On the whole, the user engagement and quality of TikTok are both higher than those of Bilibili. However, both of two platforms fall short in terms of the quality and reliability of videos related to amblyopia. The reliability of specialist-uploaded videos is higher. This might be because they can provide information that is more valuable to the audience. The two platforms' videos pay far more attention to the treatment of amblyopia than to its prevention. The proposed intervention measures include robust platform certification, active involvement of medical specialists in content creation, and enriching the video content.
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.