ArticlePloS one2026
Scrolling for science: Assessing the quality and accuracy of Crohn's disease-related content on Instagram reels.
Article in PloS one, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is a concerning trend of misinformation of healthcare related content on social media. Recent studies have examined themes and narratives about Crohn's disease but have not quantitatively assessed the accuracy and quality of content on Instagram Reels. Our aim was to assess the quality and accuracy of Instagram Reels about Crohn's disease and examine differences in content by type of creator, from medical professionals to lay individuals.
methodsSeventy-eight top-viewed English-language Instagram Reels tagged with "#crohns" were evaluated. Videos were categorized by creator and content type. Two reviewers evaluated each video for accuracy and quality using an adapted harm/benefit score and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, respectively.
resultsSeventeen percent of videos were created by medical professionals and 83% by non-medical users. Educational content was significantly more common among medical professionals than other content creators (62% vs 23%; P = 0.005). No significant correlation was found between engagement metrics and either JAMA or harm/benefit scores. Medical professionals had significantly higher JAMA scores than non-medical users (2.5 vs 2, P < 0.001), but there was no significant difference in harm/benefit scores between groups (0 vs 0, P = 0.9601). Videos offering medical advice had the lowest median harm/benefit score (-1), with frequent misinformation noted. Forty-two percent of harmful videos were created by medical professionals.
conclusionsThe average Instagram Reel about Crohn's disease was of moderate quality and neutral impact. Accuracy or quality was unrelated to video popularity. While videos by medical professionals had higher JAMA scores, this did not correspond to greater accuracy. Medical advice videos by medical professionals were not more accurate than those by non-medical creators, and multiple harmful videos were created by medical professionals, underscoring the need for critical evaluation of Crohn's disease-related social media content.
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.