ArticleMedicine2026
Evaluation of the quality of information on gouty arthritis on Chinese internet platforms: A cross-sectional comparative analysis.
Article in Medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Acute gout attacks cause severe pain, and short-video platforms have become patients' primary source of information. However, the quality and reliability of this information are increasingly concerning. This study will systematically evaluate the information quality of gouty arthritis-related content on Bilibili and TikTok video-sharing platforms, along with factors influencing video quality. This study systematically evaluated the quality and reliability of 100 popular gout-related videos each from Bilibili and TikTok. Video quality and reliability were assessed using the global quality score, Modified DISCERN (mDISCERN), JAMA Benchmark Standard, and Hexagonal Radar Schema (HRS) tools. Correlations between video quality and metrics such as likes, comments, saves, and shares were also analyzed. Results showed median scores across 4 metrics on Bilibili: global quality score 3.0 (2.00, 4.00), mDISCERN3..0 (3.00, 4.00), JAMA 3.0 (2.00, 3.00), HRS 5.0 (4.00, 6.00); TikTok's corresponding scores were 3.0 (IQR 3.00-4.00), 3.0 (IQR 3.00-4.00), 3.0 (IQR 3.00-3.75), and 3.0 (IQR 2.00-4.50). Although Bilibili's HRS scores were higher than TikTok's, video quality was generally poor across both platforms. Furthermore, the study found a positive correlation between video length and quality. Increased likes and shares may not always reflect improved video quality, as these metrics can be influenced by the entertainment nature of online videos and may not fully indicate quality. Our research indicates that the health information short videos related to gouty arthritis on Bilibili and TikTok have poor quality, but the videos uploaded by medical professionals are considered reliable in terms of comprehensiveness and content quality. Health information seekers must carefully evaluate the scientific accuracy and reliability of short videos providing medical information on Bilibili and TikTok before making healthcare decisions.
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.