ArticleBMC oral health2026
Source credibility matters: assessing the quality of periodontitis educational content on Chinese social media.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating pulpitis-related content on Chinese social media: platform comparison, dental practitioner impact and associated factors.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Information Quality, Content Scope, and Audience Engagement of Popular Turkish Instagram Posts on Tooth Whitening: A Cross-Sectional Content Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeriodontitis, a prevalent inflammatory disease with systemic health implications, necessitates effective public education. Social media platforms offer broad reach for health communication but face challenges in content quality and reliability. The primary objective of this cross‑sectional study was to compare the quality and reliability of periodontitis‑related short videos on TikTok and Xiaohongshu using the Global Quality Score (GQS), JAMA benchmark criteria, and the Modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) tool.
methodsVideos on TikTok and Xiaohongshu were evaluated using inclusion/exclusion criteria, with data on engagement metrics and uploader sources collected. Video quality was assessed via GQS, JAMA, and mDISCERN scales, analyzed using non-parametric tests and Spearman correlations.
resultsTwo hundred periodontitis-related videos were analyzed (100 each from TikTok and Xiaohongshu). TikTok demonstrated significantly higher user engagement (likes, shares, comments; P < 0.01) and superior quality scores compared to Xiaohongshu. Medical sources produced higher-quality content than non-medical uploaders, with marked differences in JAMA and mDISCERN scores. Dentist-uploaded videos scored higher in mDISCERN on TikTok.
conclusionTikTok demonstrates superior user engagement and content quality for periodontitis-related education compared to Xiaohongshu, yet systemic gaps in reliability persist, such as low JAMA and mDISCERN scores. Videos from medical professionals, particularly dentists, were associated with higher quality scores, underscoring the need for platform-level verification systems to prioritize credible sources.
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.