ArticleScientific reports2026
Quality and reliability of hyperlipidemia-related short videos on mainstream social media platforms: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Abstract
Amid the rising prevalence of hyperlipidemia in China, the public's growing reliance on unregulated short-video platforms poses a significant risk of misinformation. This study systematically evaluated the quality of 233 hyperlipidemia-related videos across TikTok, Bilibili, and RedNote, platforms selected for their distinct content formats, audience profiles, and information environments. Video quality was assessed using the Global Quality Score (GQS), reliability with modified DISCERN and JAMA benchmarks, and educational value with the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT); content completeness was also scored. Overall video quality was moderate, with significant disparities observed across platforms and creator types. Bilibili videos offered greater comprehensiveness (higher GQS and content completeness), while TikTok and RedNote content was more understandable. Science communicators produced the highest overall quality videos, whereas physicians excelled in reliability. Critically, user engagement metrics like 'likes' showed virtually no correlation with video quality (|ρ|≤ 0.09). In contrast, content completeness was a strong independent predictor of higher quality (OR 1.59), underscoring its importance over popularity. In conclusion, the quality of hyperlipidemia videos on Chinese platforms is inconsistent, and popular videos are not necessarily reliable. This highlights a critical need for platforms to shift from popularity-based algorithms to ones that prioritize creator expertise and content completeness, and for healthcare professionals and science communicators to collaborate on producing scientifically accurate yet accessible 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.