ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2026
Quality and reliability of aortic dissection-related health information on TikTok and Bilibili: a cross-sectional content analysis study.
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.
- Quality, content, and engagement of pulmonary tuberculosis related videos on Douyin: a cross-sectional study.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In recent years, TikTok and Bilibili, two popular Chinese social media platforms, have played an important role in health communication by providing a wide range of health-related content to diverse audiences. This study aimed to evaluate the content, quality, and reliability of aortic dissection (AD)-related videos on these two platforms. Methods: Using the keyword "" (Chinese for aortic dissection), we initially retrieved the top 150 videos per platform under the default ranking. We recorded video duration, engagement metrics, and uploader identity. Video quality was assessed using the Global Quality Score (GQS) and the modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) scale. Between-group differences were compared using the Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Spearman's rank correlation was applied to examine associations among variables. Results: A total of 228 videos were included. Content primarily focused on treatment (55.26%), with relatively sparse coverage of diagnosis (33.77%) and prognosis (14.91%). The median GQS was 2.50 [interquartile ranges (IQR), 2.00-3.00], and the mDISCERN score was 3.00 (IQR, 2.00-3.00). Videos on TikTok had higher GQS and mDISCERN scores (P<0.05). Compared with individual users and organizations, videos produced by specialist physicians achieved higher GQS and mDISCERN scores (P<0.05). Engagement metrics were not associated with GQS or mDISCERN (P>0.05). Conclusions: The overall quality and reliability of AD-related videos on TikTok and Bilibili remain suboptimal, with insufficient attention to diagnosis and prognosis. Specialist-produced content shows higher reliability, whereas popularity does not reflect accuracy. Future efforts should strengthen platform oversight and review, encourage greater participation by specialist physicians in producing AD content, and optimize health information dissemination strategies.
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.