ArticleMedicine2026
Comparative assessment of the quality and reliability of cerebral infarction-related short-video health information on TikTok and Bilibili: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Short-video platforms are important sources of cerebral infarction-related health information, but the completeness, reliability, and platform differences of such content remain unclear. This study compared engagement, topic coverage, and information quality of cerebral infarction-related videos on TikTok and Bilibili. Using the keyword "cerebral infarction," we screened the top 150 search results from each platform. Of 300 retrieved videos, 289 were included (TikTok: n = 146; Bilibili: n = 143). Video duration and engagement metrics were extracted, and uploaders were classified as doctors of health professions (DHPs), non-doctors of health professions (NDHPs), or individual users. Topic coverage was coded as not covered, partially covered, or completely covered. Information quality and reliability were assessed using GQS, mDISCERN, JAMA benchmarks, and VIQI. Mann-Whitney U, Kruskal-Wallis with Dunn-Bonferroni post hoc tests, and Spearman correlation analyses were performed. Content coverage was uneven. Epidemiology was absent in 85.8% of videos and completely covered in only 0.3%, whereas diagnosis was absent in 69.6% and completely covered in 10.0%. Etiology and clinical manifestations were more frequently addressed, with complete coverage in 61.2% and 37.7%, respectively. Bilibili videos were longer than TikTok videos, whereas TikTok videos showed higher likes, collections, comments, and shares (all P < .001). Platform differences were observed across all 4 quality instruments. TikTok videos had higher JAMA scores, whereas Bilibili videos had higher mDISCERN and VIQI scores; GQS also differed significantly despite a median score of 3.0 on both platforms. DHP-uploaded videos had higher quality scores than NDHP- or individual-user videos across all 4 instruments (all P < .001). Platform-stratified correlations between engagement and quality scores were weak, ranging from r = -0.257 to r = 0.139 on TikTok and from R = 0.066 to R = 0.298 on Bilibili. Cerebral infarction-related videos on TikTok and Bilibili showed modest overall quality and gaps in key actionable domains, particularly epidemiology and diagnosis. Engagement was a poor proxy for information quality. Stronger credibility labeling, source disclosure, and quality-aware recommendation strategies may improve short-video health information.
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.