ArticleDigital health
The quality and reliability of short videos about amblyopia 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. 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.
- The quality and reliability of short videos about chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on TikTok and Bilibili: a cross-sectional study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- A cross-sectional study on the quality of pediatric autism-related videos on short video platforms.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: With the rise of short video platforms, TikTok and Bilibili have become major sources of health information for the public. This study aimed to evaluate the content, quality, and reliability of amblyopia-related videos. Methods: Using "amblyopia" as the keyword, we collected the video content, engagement metrics, video duration, and uploaders identity of the top 150 default-ranked videos on both platforms. The Global Quality Score (GQS) and the modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) tool were used to assess video quality and reliability. Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests were then used for group comparisons, and Spearman correlation was used for correlation analysis. Results: A total of 199 videos were included. TikTok videos were significantly shorter than Bilibili videos. TikTok demonstrated considerably higher user engagement across likes, comments, collections and shares. Video content mainly focused on treatment (88.44%), while etiology (39.70%) and prevention (40.70%) were less discussed. The median GQS score was 3.00 (IQR: 2.00-3.00), and the median mDISCERN score was 3.00 (IQR: 2.00-3.00). No differences were found between platforms in GQS and mDISCERN ( Conclusion: The quality and reliability of amblyopia-related videos were suboptimal, with diagnosis and prevention receiving insufficient attention. Videos uploaded by specialists had the highest quality and reliability. Strengthening content review and oversight and encouraging greater participation of specialists in amblyopia science communication are needed to improve the quality of health information on short video 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.