ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Educational performance of TikTok short videos for age related macular degeneration and its link to user engagement.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Large language models for primary care ophthalmic education: a systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Quality and content evaluation of anal fistula information on TikTok and Bilibili: A cross-sectional study.Medicine · 2026Article
- Quality assessment of dry eye educational videos on Xiaohongshu and differences by uploader type.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Short-term outcomes of intravitreal faricimab on refractory neovascular age-related macular degeneration patients in China.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To systematically evaluate the information quality, reliability, and content characteristics of short videos related to age-related macular degeneration on the Chinese mainland version of TikTok, filling the research gap in this field and providing references for ophthalmic health education and platform information governance. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted on October 15, 2025, by searching the keyword "" on TikTok. The top 200 videos under "comprehensive ranking" were screened, and 196 videos meeting the eligibility criteria were ultimately included. Content integrity was evaluated following the American Academy of Ophthalmology guidelines and the Goobie framework. Video quality was assessed using the DISCERN instrument and the PEMAT-A/V tool. Statistical analyses were performed in IBM SPSS Statistics 27.0, with inter-rater reliability measured by the intraclass correlation coefficient. Differences among groups and associations between variables were examined using ANOVA and correlation analysis. Results: The overall quality of the included videos was moderate, with a median DISCERN tool score of 48.00 and a median Overall quality score of 3.00. The Understandability score was relatively high (median 84.62%), whereas the Actionability score was lower (median 75.00%). Videos uploaded by the Non-Profit group showed the highest quality (mean DISCERN tool score 59.13 ± 2.50), followed by the Medical group. The Non-Medical and For-Profit groups demonstrated the lowest quality, with statistically significant differences among groups ( Conclusion: Age-related macular degeneration videos on TikTok showed moderate overall quality, with content emphasizing clinical concerns but neglecting basic knowledge. Information quality varied by uploader source, with non-profit organizations and medical professionals providing most high-quality content. Higher-quality videos tended to receive greater user engagement, suggesting that platform algorithms may preferentially spread better educational material. These findings provide empirical support for improving science communication on this disease and strengthening information quality management on digital platforms.
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.