ArticleBMC gastroenterology2026
The quality and reliability of short videos about choledocholithiasis on TikTok and Bilibili in China.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCholedocholithiasis, a disease with a rising incidence and potential for severe complications, has prompted many to seek health information online. TikTok and Bilibili have emerged as key platforms for disseminating such information. This study evaluates the quality and reliability of short videos on choledocholithiasis on these platforms.
methodsThis study analyzed the top 100 choledocholithiasis-related videos from TikTok and Bilibili. The Global Quality Score (GQS), modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) tool, and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) criteria were employed to assess video quality. Cohen's Kappa coefficient is used to assess inter-rater agreement.Group comparisons were conducted using Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis H tests, while Spearman's correlation was utilized for correlation analysis.
resultsA total of 170 videos were included, predominantly uploaded by hepatobiliary surgeons. The content of these videos mainly focuses on treatment (81.76%), with limited coverage of etiology and diagnosis. The overall video quality was mediocre, with median scores of 3 for GQS (IQR: 3.00-4.00), 2 for mDISCERN (IQR: 2.00-2.00), and 2 for JAMA (IQR: 2.00-2.00). Videos from hepatobiliary surgeons generally exhibited superior quality. Notably, video quality showed no correlation with engagement metrics.
conclusionsThe content of choledocholithiasis-related videos is structurally deficient. The videos' quality, reliability, and transparency are relatively poor, though those uploaded by hepatobiliary surgeons stand out for their superior quality and reliability. Importantly, video quality is independent of engagement metrics.
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.