ArticleBMC anesthesiology2026
Assessing the quality of general anesthesia-related short videos on TikTok: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- TikTok as a source of information for migraine: a content quality analysis.Oxford open digital health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTikTok has become a significant source of health information for the public, yet misinformation on the platform may adversely affect health decision-making. To date, no study has systematically evaluated the quality of general anesthesia-related short videos on TikTok.
objectiveThis study aims to assess the quality and reliability of general anesthesia-related videos on TikTok using validated instruments and to examine correlations among video source, duration, user engagement, and content quality.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional analysis of TikTok videos retrieved using the keyword "" (general anesthesia). Video quality was evaluated using the Global Quality Scale (GQS), modified DISCERN (mDISCERN), JAMA benchmark criteria, and a custom composite score assessing risk disclosure, procedural completeness, and accuracy. Uploaders were categorized by professional background. Statistical analyses included Holm-Bonferroni corrected non-parametric tests, Spearman correlations, and multivariable ordinal logistic regression adjusting for video duration.
resultsOf 150 retrieved videos, 127 met the inclusion criteria. Overall quality was low-to-moderate: median GQS 2.0 (IQR: 1.0-3.0), JAMA 2.0 (1.0-2.0), mDISCERN 2.0 (2.0-2.0), and custom score 4.0 (3.0-4.0), with notably poor risk disclosure (median 0.0). Videos from anesthesia professionals scored highest across all metrics. Engagement metrics did not correlate with video quality. Video duration correlated positively only with GQS (r = 0.339, P < 0.001). Multivariable analysis confirmed that uploader background independently predicted quality; patients and the general public had significantly lower odds of producing high-quality content compared with anesthesia professionals (P < 0.001).
conclusionsGeneral anesthesia-related videos on TikTok exhibit substantial quality deficiencies, particularly in risk communication. Video popularity does not reflect scientific reliability. Given that professional background independently predicts content quality, healthcare professionals should actively create evidence-based content, and platforms must algorithmically prioritize authoritative sources to mitigate misinformation.
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.