ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Reliable, neutral, and comprehensive, or their antithesis? A cross-sectional analysis of electroconvulsive therapy-related video quality across TikTok, BiliBili, and YouTube.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a well-established and effective treatment for several psychiatric disorders, however, stigma and misinformation surrounding ECT remain widespread. Social media has become a major source of health information for patients and may influence treatment perceptions and decision-making, yet the quality and reliability of ECT-related content vary substantially across platforms. This study aimed to evaluate the quality, reliability, and dissemination characteristics of ECT-related videos on TikTok, BiliBili, and YouTube, and to identify factors associated with higher informational quality. Methods: On December 8, 2025, the top 100 videos retrieved using the Chinese keyword "" on TikTok and BiliBili, and the English term "ECT" on YouTube were screened. Videos were independently assessed for attitude toward ECT, content completeness, and overall quality using the Global Quality Scale (GQS), modified DISCERN (mDISCERN), and the Medical Video Evaluation Tool (MQ-VET). Inter-rater reliability was calculated, and non-parametric statistical tests and Spearman correlation analyses were performed. Results: A total of 71 TikTok videos, 75 BiliBili videos, and 86 YouTube videos were included. YouTube videos demonstrated significantly greater content completeness than those on BiliBili. Overall quality scores were higher on YouTube than on BiliBili, and YouTube also outperformed TikTok in both mDISCERN and total MQ-VET scores. Video uploader identity, presentation format, and content category were differentially associated with video quality across platforms. Engagement metrics were not correlated with video quality on TikTok or BiliBili, whereas positive correlations were observed on YouTube. Conclusion: Substantial platform-specific differences exist in the dissemination and quality of ECT-related health information. TikTok demonstrates strong user engagement, whereas YouTube provides more comprehensive and reliable content. These findings underscore the importance of platform-tailored, evidence-based strategies to improve the quality and public communication of ECT-related information.
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.