ArticleDigital health
Health information quality of gallbladder cancer videos on TikTok and Bilibili in China: A cross-sectional content analysis.
Article in Digital health. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Backgrounds: Gallbladder cancer is a highly invasive malignant tumor characterized by challenging early diagnosis and poor prognosis. With the widespread adoption of short-video platforms in China, the public increasingly accesses health information through channels such as TikTok (Chinese version) and Bilibili. However, the quality and reliability of gallbladder cancer-related videos on these platforms have not been systematically evaluated. Objective: This study aims to evaluate content characteristics, information quality, and reliability of gallbladder cancer-related videos on TikTok and Bilibili in China, thereby providing evidence-based guidance for optimizing health information dissemination through short video content. Methods: A total of 158 videos (99 from TikTok, 59 from Bilibili) were included in the final analysis. We extracted basic information and user interaction data from these videos. Video quality, reliability, and information coverage were assessed using the Global Quality Scale (GQS), modified DISCERN tool (mDISCERN), and Content Completeness Score (CS). Nonparametric statistical methods and chi-square tests were used for data analysis. Results: Regarding general information, Bilibili videos are notably longer (170 seconds vs. 82 seconds, Conclusion: In summary, TikTok videos are more interactive, whereas Bilibili videos tend to be longer and offer more comprehensive content. However, videos on both platforms suffer from insufficient information completeness and inconsistent quality, with popularity failing to reflect scientific accuracy. It is recommended that platforms, healthcare professionals and content creators collaborate to collectively enhance the overall quality and dissemination effectiveness of health 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.