ArticlePloS one2026
Evaluating the quality of social media content on metabolic dysfunction associated steatotic liver disease: An experience from a lower middle-income country.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Alcohol-related health information on Chinese short-video platforms: a cross-sectional content analysis of Douyin and Bilibili.Scientific reports · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMetabolic dysfunction associated with steatotic liver disease (MASLD)/non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) represents a significant public health concern. Social media (SoMe) increasingly influences health perceptions in lower-middle-income countries, with one-third of Sri Lanka's population using SoMe for health information. Assessing MASLD content quality on SoMe is therefore important. AIMS &
methodsThis cross-sectional study assessed accuracy, completeness, and quality of MASLD content across Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, and X in Sinhala, English, and Tamil from Sri Lanka (January 2005-December 2024). Board-certified gastroenterologists independently reviewed posts using standardised scales for accuracy (0-3), completeness (0-5), and global quality score (GQS) (0-5). Posts were categorised by source profile and content type, with user interactions analysed.
resultsAnalysis included 289 posts: 158 (54.7%) YouTube, 101 (34.9%) Facebook, 14 (4.8%) TikTok, 11 (3.8%) X, 5 (1.7%) Instagram. Languages: 214 (74.0%) Sinhala, 54 (18.7%) Tamil, 21 (7.3%) English. Content sources: undisclosed identity (36.0%), non-healthcare persons (26.0%), healthcare professionals (22.1%), alternative healthcare professionals (14.2%), healthcare institutions (1.7%). Health promotion (61.9%) was the predominant content type. Mean accuracy was 1.78/3 (59.3%), with healthcare professionals scoring highest (2.35/3, 78.5%) versus others (51.0-55.1%; p < 0.001). Completeness averaged 2.1/5 (42%), with English content scoring higher than Sinhala and Tamil. GQS averaged 2.4/5 (48.4%). 82% of posts were classified as "Rotten" (<60% score for each metric). Facebook and YouTube showed significantly higher completeness and GQS (p < 0.05). User engagement metrics showed no correlation with content quality.
conclusionMost SoMe content originated from non-healthcare sources. Healthcare professionals delivered the most accurate content. Facebook and YouTube showed relatively higher content quality scores, though comparisons are limited by the small number of posts from other platforms. Overall quality remained suboptimal across platforms, with 82% failing adequate standards. User engagement didn't correlate with quality. These findings highlight the need for improved quality control and health literacy initiatives for MASLD information on SoMe 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.