ArticleThoracic cancer2026
Quality and Reliability of Lung Cancer Treatment Short Videos on Chinese Social Media: A Cross-Sectional Analysis for Cancer Education Improvement (January 1, 2020-October 30, 2025).
Article in Thoracic cancer, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundShort-form videos have become the common source of cancer information for Chinese patients and caregivers. We evaluated the content, quality, and reliability of lung cancer treatment videos on TikTok, Bilibili, and Kwai and generated evidence-based recommendations for cancer health education.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study of lung cancer treatment short videos on TikTok, Bilibili, and Kwai. The top 200 most-liked videos per platform posted between January 1, 2020 and October 30, 2025, were retrieved on November 1, 2025. After screening, 300 videos (100 per platform) were analyzed. Two oncologists rated quality using GQS (1-5) and DISCERN (1-5); creator identity was classified. Comment sentiment (SnowNLP) and engagement metrics were analyzed.
resultsTikTok had the highest engagement and quality (GQS 3.0, DISCERN 3.0) versus Bilibili/Kwai (2.0) (p < 0.001). Professionals achieved the highest quality (GQS 3.0) versus institutions (1.0) (p < 0.001). However, absolute quality was low across all platforms: only 6% of videos met high-quality criteria (GQS ≥ 4), and 5% met DISCERN ≥ 4. Engagement showed a weak negative correlation with quality (ρ = -0.13 to -0.21).
conclusionsOverall quality is low; professional content is more reliable but less viral. Embedding quality indicators in algorithms and promoting certified creators could improve patient cancer education.
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.