ArticleScientific reports2026
Quality and content evaluation of male HPV infection on Bilibili and TikTok: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Social media platforms, particularly short-video applications, have emerged as crucial channels for disseminating public health information. Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in males represents a significant sexually transmitted disease burden with under-addressed health impacts. Despite its prevalence, the quality of HPV-related content targeting male audiences on these platforms remains unevaluated, posing potential risks to public health literacy. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 265 TikTok and Bilibili videos addressing male HPV infection. Video reliability and educational quality were assessed using the modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) instrument and Global Quality Scale (GQS). The study used statistical analysis to examine the content and quality of videos on the two platforms, the identities of the uploaders and the correlations between these factors and user engagement data. Overall video quality was low (median GQS = 2.00; mDISCERN = 2.00). TikTok outperformed Bilibili in both engagement metrics and quality scores (GQS: TikTok median = 2.00 [IQR 2.00-3.00] vs. Bilibili = 2.00 [2.00-2.00], p < 0.01; mDISCERN: 2.00 [2.00-3.00] vs. 2.00 [2.00-2.00]). Content gaps were prominent: only 15.8% (n = 42) covered prevention strategies (e.g., vaccination), while symptom descriptions dominated (29.8%). Specialist-generated videos scored significantly higher in quality (GQS = 3.00 [2.00-3.00]; mDISCERN = 2.00 [2.00-3.00]) than non-specialist content (GQS = 2.00 [2.00-2.00]; mDISCERN = 2.00 [2.00-2.00]). Engagement metrics showed no correlation with quality scores. Short-video platforms exhibit suboptimal quality in disseminating male HPV information, with TikTok marginally superior to Bilibili. Specialist involvement enhances content reliability, underscoring the importance of leveraging professional health communication on social media. Public health initiatives must prioritise engaging experts to amplify accurate prevention messaging, particularly regarding vaccination, and address current informational inequities, thereby improving community health outcomes.
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.