ArticleJMIR infodemiology2026
Tetanus Health Information on YouTube and TikTok: Cross-Sectional Analysis of Quality, Reliability, and Public Health Implications.
Article in JMIR infodemiology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Tetanus is a severe but vaccine-preventable neurological disease that remains a public health concern, especially in resource-limited settings. As social media becomes an important source of health information, concerns persist regarding the quality and reliability of tetanus-related content online. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the quality, reliability, and thematic characteristics of tetanus-related videos on YouTube and TikTok and to examine the relationship between engagement metrics and information quality. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using tetanus-related videos retrieved from YouTube and TikTok on August 1, 2025. The top 100 eligible videos from each platform were included (n=200). Video quality was assessed using the Global Quality Scale, whereas reliability and transparency were evaluated using the modified DISCERN tool and the Journal of the American Medical Association benchmark criteria. A thematic content analysis based on predefined coding categories was also performed. Video characteristics, source types, and engagement metrics were also collected. Spearman correlation analysis was used to examine associations between engagement indicators and quality scores. Results: YouTube videos showed significantly higher quality and reliability than TikTok videos, with higher median Global Quality Scale, modified DISCERN, and Journal of the American Medical Association scores (all P<.001). Compared with TikTok, YouTube videos more frequently discussed symptoms (92% vs 81%, P=.02), prevention (95% vs 78%, P<.001), treatment (88% vs 70%, P=.002), and wound management (77% vs 38%, P<.001). Lower-quality videos commonly contained incomplete prevention information, vague symptom descriptions, and limited source attribution. Videos produced by official medical organizations and professional health care creators generally achieved higher quality scores. Although engagement indicators were strongly correlated with each other, their associations with informational quality were relatively limited. Conclusions: YouTube provided more comprehensive and reliable tetanus-related information than TikTok, although content quality on both platforms remained inconsistent. Greater involvement from health care professionals and clearer evidence-based communication may help improve the quality of health information shared on social media platforms.
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.