Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42103851›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Quality, reliability, and treatment misinformation risk of epilepsy content on Chinese short-video platforms TikTok (Douyin) and Bilibili: a cross-sectional analysis.

Yuan-Jie Zhang, Yue-Ying Guo, Yong Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Yuan-Jie ZhangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Yue-Ying GuoDepartment of Urology, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. yueyingguo@126.com.
Yong WangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Hainan West Central Hospital, Hainan, China. bmyysjwk_wy@sina.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Epilepsy is one of the most prevalent chronic neurological disorders worldwide, affecting approximately 70 million people globally and imposing substantial burdens on patients, families, and healthcare systems. Its multifaceted treatment landscape spanning antiepileptic drug (AED) therapy, epilepsy surgery, ketogenic dietary therapy, and neuromodulation makes accurate health information critical for patient decision-making and treatment adherence. Short-video platforms such as TikTok (Douyin) and Bilibili have emerged as primary channels through which the public accesses health-related content, yet the quality and reliability of epilepsy-related content on these platforms remain largely unexamined. A cross-sectional content analysis was conducted. We systematically retrieved videos via keyword search on TikTok (Douyin) and Bilibili, using the terms "dianxian" (epilepsy) and "jingfeng" (seizure/convulsion). For each platform, we collected the top 100 unique videos ranked by the platform's default relevance algorithm, with duplicate results from the two search terms removed. After applying pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria, 182 videos were included in the final analysis. Two physicians independently assessed the videos using a multi-instrument framework with clear applicable boundaries: Global Quality Score (GQS, for overall educational quality across all content types), modified DISCERN (mDISCERN, exclusively for treatment information reliability), JAMA benchmark criteria (for source transparency, not direct clinical accuracy), and a novel Treatment Misinformation Risk Scale (TMRS, specifically for epilepsy treatment-related content). Inter-rater reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Engagement metrics and uploader characteristics were also recorded, with sensitivity analyses performed to control for confounding from uneven content theme distribution between platforms. A total of 182 videos were analyzed (96 from TikTok, 86 from Bilibili). The overall educational quality was suboptimal (mean GQS: 2.65 ± 0.93; mDISCERN: 2.12 ± 0.89 for treatment-containing videos). Bilibili videos demonstrated significantly higher performance across all instruments: overall educational quality (GQS: 3.11 ± 0.87 vs. 2.24 ± 0.84, P < 0.001), treatment information reliability (mDISCERN: 2.56 ± 0.81 vs. 1.74 ± 0.76, P < 0.001), and source transparency (JAMA: 2.18 ± 0.72 vs. 1.42 ± 0.68, P < 0.001). The mean normalized TMRS score was 1.15 ± 0.62, with TikTok showing significantly higher treatment misinformation risk (1.41 ± 0.54) than Bilibili (0.86 ± 0.53, P < 0.001). TMRS scores were positively correlated with likes (rho = 0.46, P < 0.001), shares (rho = 0.43, P < 0.001), and comments (rho = 0.39, P < 0.001), while quality scores showed no significant correlation with engagement. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that the observed platform differences were not confounded by differences in content theme distribution. Epilepsy-related content on China's major short-video platforms is of concerningly poor quality, with treatment misinformation receiving disproportionately higher user engagement. These findings highlight the urgent need for collaborative efforts among neurologists, platform operators, and health authorities to improve the quality of epilepsy health information in the digital environment.

Indexed as

CommunicationEpilepsyVideo RecordingChinaCross-Sectional StudiesDigital MediaHumansReproducibility of ResultsBilibiliContent analysisEpilepsyHealth information qualityMisinformationShort videoSocial mediaTikTok

Identifiers

PMID42103851
PMCPMC13341740

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.