ArticleJournal of ophthalmology2026
Evaluation of Social Media Short-Form Video Content for Patient Education on Vision-Threatening Diseases.
Article in Journal of ophthalmology, 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.
- Assessment of the quality and reliability of public health communication about hypertension on short video platforms in China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Social Media Short-Form Video Content for Patient Education on Vision-Threatening Diseases.Journal of ophthalmology · 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
Purpose: The rapid spread of unreliable misinformation on vision-threatening diseases can significantly affect the eye health behaviors and outcomes of the patients consuming short-form social media content. This study evaluates short-form videos pertaining to vision-threatening diseases to quantify video quality, content, and popularity. Methods: This cross-sectional study analyzed short-form videos on cataracts, diabetic retinopathy, glaucoma, and age-related macular degeneration from TikTok, Instagram Reels, and YouTube Shorts. A hashtag search identified the first fifty videos on each disease from each social media platform. Two reviewers evaluated them, resolving discrepancies with a third. Outcome measures included number of views, likes, comments, uploader source, content type, modified DISCERN score (0-5 scale), and global quality scale (GQS) score (1-5 scale). Engagement outcomes were summarized descriptively using medians and interquartile ranges, while reliability and quality outcomes were analyzed using one-way ANOVA with Tukey post hoc comparisons. Results: TikTok videos demonstrated higher median engagement (views, likes, and comments) compared to Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts. Videos on cataracts had higher engagement statistics compared to the other vision-threatening diseases across all platforms. Physicians were the most common video source (45%). The most common content categories were treatments/management (36%) and general symptoms (22%). YouTube Shorts had a significantly greater average DISCERN (2.93 ± 0.70) and GQS score (3.85 ± 1.26) than Instagram Reels and TikTok ( Conclusions: TikTok had the greatest median engagement levels, while YouTube Shorts had the greatest mean quality and reliability. Videos from patients and philanthropists had lower quality scores, while healthcare professionals and organizations had the highest. Future efforts should understand the patients' perspectives, address misinformation, and improve quality across all social media platforms.
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.