ArticleDigital health
Evaluating the quality, reliability, and diagnostic risk of ADHD content on TikTok and Bilibili: A cross-sectional content analysis.
Article in Digital health. 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.
- A cross sectional content analysis evaluates chemotherapy health information quality and reliability on TikTok and Bilibili.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Quality, reliability, and treatment misinformation risk of epilepsy content on Chinese short-video platforms TikTok (Douyin) and Bilibili: a cross-sectional analysis.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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a complex neurodevelopmental disorder requiring professional diagnosis. Recently, short-video platforms such as TikTok and Bilibili have seen a surge in ADHD-related content, driving a trend of self-diagnosis among the public, particularly young adults. The scientific quality and potential risks of this content have not been systematically evaluated. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the quality and reliability of ADHD content on TikTok and Bilibili, analyze its content characteristics, and specifically investigate the prevalence of content encouraging self-diagnosis and its association with user engagement. Methods: The top 100 videos from each platform were retrieved using the keywords "ADHD" and "." After a screening process, a total of 164 videos were included for analysis. Two senior clinical psychologists independently assessed the videos using the modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) tool and the Global Quality Score (GQS). Videos were classified by uploader type (e.g., healthcare professionals, patients/influencers) and content theme (e.g., symptom education, self-tests). A novel Self-Diagnosis Risk Scale (SDRS) was also applied. Nonparametric statistical methods were used for data analysis. Results: A total of 164 videos were analyzed (88 from TikTok, 76 from Bilibili). Significant platform differences emerged, with Bilibili videos demonstrating superior quality scores (GQS: 3.05 ± 0.91 vs. 2.45 ± 0.88; mDISCERN: 2.62 ± 0.85 vs. 1.88 ± 0.72; both Conclusions: This study reveals concerning patterns in ADHD-related content on major Chinese short-video platforms, where potentially harmful content encouraging self-diagnosis receives preferential algorithmic promotion over scientifically rigorous material. The inverse relationship between content quality and user engagement suggests current platform mechanisms may inadvertently amplify misleading health information while marginalizing evidence-based content. These findings underscore the urgent need for collaborative interventions involving platform operators, healthcare professionals, and public health educators to develop content guidelines, improve algorithmic curation of health information, and support healthcare professionals in creating engaging, evidence-based content. As social media platforms continue serving as primary health information sources, ensuring quality and safety of mental health content must become a priority for platform governance and public health policy.
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.