ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2026
Quality, reliability and engagement of aortic dissection-related health information on TikTok: a cross-sectional study from China.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 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.
- Myocarditis-related videos on TikTok: a cross-sectional analysis of content quality and user engagement.Journal of thoracic disease · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: TikTok (or named as Douyin in mainland China) has emerged as a major source of health information. Aortic dissection (AD) is a rapidly fatal emergency in which delayed recognition or misinformation can have catastrophic consequences, yet the quality of short-video content on this condition remains unclear. This study aimed to systematically assess the quality and reliability of AD-related videos on TikTok and to examine their association with user engagement and video features. Methods: A systematic search was conducted on TikTok using the keyword "aortic dissection" to identify videos published before March 1, 2026. Videos were included if they addressed AD and excluded if they were duplicates, irrelevant to the topic, or involved medical insurance content; 151 videos were ultimately analyzed. Video features (uploader type: healthcare professionals, general users, or news media; duration; and engagement metrics) and quality/reliability were evaluated using the Global Quality Scale (GQS, 1-5) and modified DISCERN (mDISCERN, 0-5) by two independent specialists. Continuous variables are presented as median [interquartile range (IQR)], and analyses used the Mann-Whitney U test, Spearman correlation, and multivariable linear regression. Results: Across the 151 videos, overall quality was moderate [median GQS: 3 (IQR, 2-4) and median mDISCERN: 2 (IQR, 1-2)]. Most videos (92.72%) were uploaded by health professionals (mainly physicians). Videos posted by health professionals had significantly higher GQS and mDISCERN scores than those posted by non-health professionals (GQS: P<0.001; mDISCERN: P=0.003). In the adjusted models, video length was positively associated with GQS (β=0.002, P=0.003) and mDISCERN scores (β=0.001, P=0.049), whereas higher numbers of likes and comments were associated with lower GQS (likes: β=-0.002, P=0.005; comments: β=-0.041, P=0.004) and mDISCERN scores (likes: β=-0.001, P=0.02; comments: β=-0.024, P=0.007), demonstrating a distinct "popularity paradox". Conclusions: Although Chinese-language TikTok videos on AD are predominantly created by health professionals, overall quality remains suboptimal. Longer videos tend to be higher quality, whereas high-engagement content exhibits lower reliability. Measures such as adopting structured storytelling formats and platform-certified labels could help transform TikTok into a reliable tool for public education on critical illnesses.
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.