ArticleScientific reports2026
A cross sectional content analysis evaluates chemotherapy health information quality and reliability on TikTok and Bilibili.
Article in Scientific reports, 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 and reliability of myelodysplastic syndromes-related health information on Chinese short-video platforms: a multi-platform cross-sectional analysis.Frontiers in 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Short-video platforms, specifically TikTok and Bilibili, are widely utilized for health information seeking in China. However, the quality of chemotherapy-related content on these channels remains unverified. This study compares the reliability and quality of chemotherapy videos across these two platforms, evaluating the impact of uploader identity, video characteristics, and user engagement metrics. A total of 188 chemotherapy-related videos were retrieved from TikTok (n = 89) and Bilibili (n = 99). Content quality and reliability were independently assessed using the Global Quality Scale (GQS) and modified DISCERN (mDISCERN). Intra-platform interactions, video length, and uploader profiles were cross-sectionally analyzed using localized stratified Spearman's rank correlation and fully adjusted multivariate Poisson regression models. Overall information quality was suboptimal. Significant baseline disparities were observed between platforms: while TikTok dominated in interaction metrics (P < .001), Bilibili achieved significantly higher reliability (mDISCERN, P < .001) and overall quality scores (GQS, P = .034). Certified oncologists were the primary contributors (46.28%), producing significantly higher-quality content than patients (P < .001). Localized stratified analysis exposed a platform-specific popularity paradox: within TikTok, GQS scores were significantly negatively correlated with likes (r = - .211, P = .047) and comments (r = - .269, P = .011), whereas this quality-engagement trade-off completely vanished within Bilibili, where mDISCERN positively aligned with collections (r = .221, P = .028) and shares (r = .249, P = .013). Fully adjusted Poisson regression confirmed that micro-level engagement counts and video length possessed no independent predictive capacity (P > .20), whereas the macro-platform identity of Bilibili emerged as a robust, standalone independent positive predictor of information reliability (RR = 1.388, 95% CI 1.069-1.801, P = .0138). A critical socio-technical divide exists within the digital health landscape, manifested as a localized popularity paradox heavily plaguing engagement-first networks like TikTok. Fully adjusted estimations reveal that the overarching macro-platform architecture itself, rather than micro-level clip features or standalone video length, serves as the independent determinant of clinical reliability. Platforms must transition from traffic-oriented metrics toward professional, quality-weighted recommendation system interventions to effectively bridge the gap between evidence-based clinical rigor and public digital accessibility.
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.