ArticleDigital health
Quality and reliability assessment of myocardial infarction short videos on Bilibili and TikTok: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Myocardial infarction (MI) is one of the leading causes of death and disability worldwide. Short-video platforms play an increasingly important role in disseminating health information; however, the quality and reliability of MI-related short videos remain unclear. Methods: Using "myocardial infarction" as the keyword, we analyzed 228 MI-related videos from TikTok and Bilibili. After extracting basic characteristics, we evaluated video quality, reliability, and transparency using the Global Quality Score (GQS), modified DISCERN (mDISCERN), JAMA benchmark, and the Video Information and Quality Index (VIQI). Nonparametric statistics were used for group comparisons, and Spearman's rank correlation was applied to assess associations between engagement metrics and quality scores. Results: Video content primarily addressed clinical presentation, etiology, and treatment, with relatively little on epidemiology and prevention. Topic distribution was as follows: clinical presentation (22.06%), etiology (22.71%), treatment (19.93%), diagnosis (16.01%), prevention (15.03%), and epidemiology (4.25%). Overall video quality was moderate: GQS 3.0 (IQR: 2-3), mDISCERN 2.0 (IQR: 2-3), JAMA 2.0 (IQR: 2-3), and VIQI 11.0 (IQR: 10-13). Videos uploaded by cardiologists received the highest quality scores ( Conclusions: MI-related short videos on TikTok and Bilibili demonstrate moderate overall quality with incomplete content coverage. Future efforts should encourage greater participation of cardiologists in health communication, enhance inclusion of epidemiology and prevention content, and support platforms in developing quality accreditation systems and optimizing recommendation algorithms to improve the scientific accuracy, transparency, and communicative value of health information.
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.