ArticleScientific reports2026
A cross-sectional study on the quality of IgA nephropathy videos on short video platforms.
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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIgA nephropathy, as a common chronic kidney disease, relies on accurate health knowledge for long-term patient management. Short videos have become a significant channel for the public to access medical information, but their overall quality varies widely, and research in the field of IgA nephropathy remains largely unexplored. A cross-sectional study design was employed to systematically retrieve videos from both platforms using "IgA nephropathy" as the keyword. Based on the inclusion criteria, 186 short videos were obtained. Video characteristics, uploader categories, and interaction metrics were collected. Quality assessment was performed using the global quality scale (GQS), modified DISCERN (mDISCERN), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, and the Video Information and Quality Index (VIQI). The overall quality of videos across both platforms was moderate. Videos published by healthcare personnel scored significantly higher than those from individual users on the GQS, mDISCERN, and JAMA criteria. Monologue-style videos demonstrated superior quality compared to other expression forms. TikTok significantly outperformed Bilibili in terms of VIQI-1/2 scores and also garnered higher levels of user interaction. Moderate to strong positive correlations were observed between interaction metrics and both GQS and VIQI scores, whereas no significant correlation was found with mDISCERN or JAMA scores. The primary focus of video content was on treatment and prognosis, while information on etiology and financial burden was notably insufficient. There are platform-specific differences in the visual presentation and information accuracy of IgA nephropathy-related short videos. Insufficient professional involvement and the absence of key information may limit the public's comprehensive understanding of the disease. Enhancing healthcare personnel participation, improving the quality of visual presentation, supplementing core medical information, and optimizing platform recommendation mechanisms will contribute to increasing the effectiveness of short videos in public health 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.