ArticleDigital health
Quality and reliability of rectal prolapse short-video content on tiktok and bilibili: A cross-sectional content analysis.
Article in Digital health. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate engagement metrics, content coverage, information quality, and reliability of rectal prolapse-related short videos on TikTok and Bilibili, and to assess the influence of uploader type. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional content analysis. Using visitor mode and the default comprehensive ranking algorithm of each platform, two researchers searched for "rectal prolapse" from October 14 to 22, 2025. The first 150 videos per platform were screened, yielding 256 unique eligible videos. Extracted variables included platform, upload date, duration, and engagement metrics (likes, comments, favorites, shares). Video quality and reliability were independently assessed by two colorectal surgeons using the Global Quality Scale (GQS), modified DISCERN (mDISCERN), and the JAMA benchmark; discrepancies were adjudicated by a senior expert. Results: TikTok outperformed Bilibili across engagement metrics (all p<0.001); video duration did not differ significantly (p=0.068). Median GQS and JAMA scores were higher on TikTok (both p≤0.001); mDISCERN differences were smaller yet significant (p=0.008). Videos from specialists scored higher on GQS, mDISCERN, and JAMA (all p<0.001). Content emphasized treatment and symptoms, whereas prevention and differential diagnosis were under-covered. Engagement metrics were highly inter-correlated but showed very weak correlations with quality scores. Conclusions: Video volume is increasing, whereas overall quality remains moderate. TikTok showed higher engagement and quality than Bilibili. Specialists play a key role in improving content. Platforms should incorporate reliability-weighted ranking signals and promote an essential-elements checklist for patient education.
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.