ArticleScientific reports2025
The quality and reliability of short videos about uraemia on BiliBili and TikTok: a 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the quality and reliability of DILI in Chinese videos on TikTok (Douyin) and BiliBili: cross-sectional content analysis study.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- The quality and reliability of short videos about cervical spondylosis on TikTok and Redbook: a cross-sectional study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Alcohol-related health information on Chinese short-video platforms: a cross-sectional content analysis of Douyin and Bilibili.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Short-form video platforms as a source of ankylosing spondylitis information: a cross-sectional content analysis.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the quality and reliability of short videos about uraemia on BiliBili and TikTok. On June 12, 2025, we searched the top 100 videos arranged by default using the keyword "uraemia" on both platforms. We collected and analysed their characteristics, content, and uploaders. To evaluate the quality, the Global Quality Score (GQS) and the modified DISCERN tool (mDISCERN) were used. This study included 153 videos in total, with 81 from TikTok and 72 from Bilibili. Overall, the audience engagement on TikTok was significantly greater than that on Bilibili. Although the median mDISCERN and GQS scores were identical across platforms (2 [2-2] and 2 [2-3], respectively), their score distributions differed significantly (p < 0.05). Interestingly, we found that videos from self-media achieved higher GQS scores than those from doctors or official media. A weak positive correlation was found between video quality and collections and shares on Bilibili alone (p < 0.05). In conclusion, the quality and reliability of health information from uraemia videos on TikTok and Bilibili were found to be suboptimal. Concerted efforts from the public, uploaders, and social media platforms are needed to foster the dissemination of high-quality health information.
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.