ArticleDigital health
Short-form video sharing platforms as a source of information for children's growing pains: 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the quality, reliability, and educational value of short-form videos pertaining to children's growing pains on popular social media platforms (TikTok, Rednote, Bilibili, and YouTube). Methods: A cross-sectional analysis of 200 short-form videos (50 per platform) was conducted using standardized search terms. Video quality was assessed using four validated instruments: modified DISCERN (mDISCERN), the Global Quality Scale (GQS), the Video Information and Quality Index (VIQI), and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). Metadata and user engagement metrics were collected, and statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, group comparisons, and correlation analyses. Results: TikTok demonstrated superior performance compared to other platforms in reliability (mDISCERN: 3.00 (3.00, 4.00); GQS: 4.00 (3.00, 4.00); median (IQR); p < 0.001), educational value (PEMAT-Understandability: 80.00 (66.70, 92.22); PEMAT-Actionability: 80.00 (60.00, 80.00); median (IQR); p < 0.001), and content comprehensiveness (VIQI-Total score: 14.00 (12.25, 15.00); median (IQR); p < 0.001). Videos created by healthcare professionals showed significantly higher quality scores and more comprehensive clinical content coverage. User engagement metrics such as likes, comments, video duration, and followers showed positive correlations with several video quality scores (r: 0.12-0.56, p < 0.05). However, engagement alone should not be considered a definitive indicator of quality. Conclusion: In conclusion, while short-form videos represent a valuable educational resource for parents, their quality varies significantly across platforms and creators. Content from healthcare professionals, particularly on TikTok, was found to be more reliable and robust. This underscores the critical role of platform algorithms in quality curation. Future initiatives should therefore encourage professional creator participation and optimize recommendation systems to prioritize informational accuracy.
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.