ArticleDigital health
Quality and reliability of myocardial infarction-related short videos on TikTok and Bilibili: A cross-sectional content analysis study.
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
Background: Myocardial infarction (MI) is a leading cause of global mortality, making public education on its prevention, early recognition, and pre-hospital first aid essential. In China, short-video platforms like TikTok (Douyin) and Bilibili have become primary channels for health information dissemination. However, the quality and reliability of MI-related content on these platforms have not been systematically evaluated. This study aimed to assess and compare the quality, reliability, and accuracy of the most widely viewed (high-visibility) short videos about MI on TikTok and Bilibili and to identify factors associated with video quality. Methods: This study conducted a cross-sectional content analysis of the top 100 highest-ranking MI-related Chinese short videos retrieved via each platform's default ranking algorithm from both TikTok and Bilibili. Two independent cardiologists evaluated the videos using the Global Quality Score (GQS), the DISCERN instrument, and a newly developed Medical Information Accuracy Score (MIAS). Basic video characteristics, uploader information, and user engagement metrics were extracted. Results: Overall, the quality of high-visibility MI-related videos on both platforms was suboptimal. Bilibili videos demonstrated significantly higher quality, reliability, and medical accuracy than those on TikTok (median GQS: 3 vs. 2, P<.001; median DISCERN: 5 vs. 3, P<.001; median MIAS: 7 vs. 4, P<.001). Videos posted by medical professionals and healthcare institutions were of significantly higher quality than those from non-professionals or media/commercial outlets (P<.001). Content created by cardiologists was of the highest quality. Critically, there was no significant correlation between video popularity (i.e.,likes and comments) and informational quality or reliability (P>.05). However, video duration showed a moderate positive correlation with higher quality and reliability scores (GQS: ρ=0.45, P<.001; DISCERN: ρ=0.41, P<.001). Conclusion: The quality of information in high-visibility myocardial infarction-related videos on China's major short-video platforms is concerningly poor, with Bilibili providing more reliable and accurate content than TikTok. The source of a video is a key determinant of its quality, but engagement metrics such as "likes" do not reliably signal informational quality. A collaborative effort among healthcare professionals, platform regulators, and the public is urgently needed to improve the quality of this critical 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.