ArticleScientific reports2026
Bilibili and TikTok heart failure short video evaluation: 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The prognosis of heart failure is highly dependent on patient self-management, and short-video platforms have become a key channel for the public to access information about heart failure (HF). This cross-sectional study systematically evaluated HF-related short videos on TikTok and Bilibili platforms. After screening from January 10 to 11, 2026, 190 videos were included (103 from Bilibili and 87 from TikTok). Two cardiologists conducted quality assessments using the Global Quality Score, modified DISCERN scale, and Patient Education Assessment Tool for Audiovisual Materials (PEMAT-A/V). Results showed higher engagement for TikTok videos and longer duration for Bilibili videos (both P < 0.05). Content primarily focused on symptoms (71.1%) and treatment (66.3%), with insufficient coverage of prevention (36.3%). Overall quality was moderately low: median scores were 3 on both the Global Quality Score and modified DISCERN scale; PEMAT understandability score was 69%, and actionability score was 50%. Bilibili videos scored higher on actionability (P = 0.029), and videos uploaded by professional institutions demonstrated the best quality (P = 0.045). Longer video duration and inclusion of symptom-related content were independent predictors of higher GQS scores. Notably, video interactivity showed no positive correlation with content quality, revealing an obvious quality-dissemination decoupling phenomenon. This finding carries important clinical implications, as high-quality professional medical content fails to gain corresponding public dissemination, which hinders standardized popular science and long-term self-management among HF patients. The overall quality of heart failure short videos urgently requires improvement, necessitating enhanced professional content supply and rigorous quality control via multiparty collaborative mechanisms. Additionally, short-video health education should be integrated into routine clinical management and telemedicine systems to optimize patient self-management.
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.