ArticleDigital health
Assessment of information quality and reliability on plantar fasciitis in short video platforms: A cross-sectional study of TikTok and Bilibili.
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.
- TikTok, Xiaohongshu, and Bilibili as sources of medical information on lung cancer: a multi-platform content evaluation.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Assessing the quality of general anesthesia-related short videos on TikTok: a cross-sectional study.BMC anesthesiology · 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: Plantar fasciitis is a common condition that impacts patients' motor function and quality of life. As short video platforms such as TikTok and Bilibili become increasingly popular for information seeking, patients are turning to them for health guidance, yet the quality of this content varies significantly. This cross-sectional study was designed to systematically evaluate the quality, reliability, and content completeness of plantar fasciitis videos on TikTok (Chinese TikTok, Douyin) and Bilibili. Methods: A total of 158 videos were collected and assessed using the global quality score (GQS), modified DISCERN (mDISCERN), and JAMA benchmarks, while uploader identity and user interaction data were also analyzed. Results: Compared with Bilibili videos, higher GQS scores were observed for TikTok videos (p = 0.003), whereas no significant between-platform differences were observed for mDISCERN (p = 0.496) or JAMA (p = 0.103). User engagement was also higher on TikTok. Professionally uploaded content, particularly from medical personnel, significantly outperformed videos from nonprofessional sources in terms of quality and reliability (p < 0.001). In terms of content, a significant gap was identified: 91.8% (n=145) of the videos addressed treatment, whereas only 15.8% (n=25) mentioned prevention. Crucially, correlation analysis revealed no significant associations between user engagement metrics (e.g., likes, shares) and GQS, mDISCERN, or content completeness scores. Conclusion: These findings reveal a dual role for short video platforms in plantar fasciitis information dissemination: they not only enhance public access but also risk spreading low-quality content due to inadequate oversight. Enhanced credential verification for health creators, greater involvement of medical institutions in content creation, and improved public education to prioritize verified sources are therefore warranted.
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.