ArticleBMC urology2026
Information quality and reliability of pheochromocytoma-related videos on tiktok and Kwai: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC urology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundShort-video platforms are major sources of health information, yet the quality of pheochromocytoma-related content is unclear. We assessed and compared the quality and reliability of related videos on TikTok and Kwai.
methodsUsing the Chinese keyword "," we searched TikTok and Kwai (24-25 Dec 2025) with a newly created account and retrieved the first 120 videos from each platform under the default "comprehensive" ranking. After exclusions, 178 videos were included (TikTok, n = 100; Kwai, n = 78). Video metrics, uploader characteristics, and content features were extracted. Quality and reliability were assessed using GQS (1-5) and mDISCERN (0-5) by two blinded reviewers, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. We compared video characteristics and GQS/mDISCERN scores between TikTok and Kwai, and performed subgroup analyses by uploader identity and physician specialty. Nonparametric tests and Spearman correlation analyses were conducted using R 4.1.3.
resultsMedian video length was 73.0 s; median GQS and mDISCERN were both 2.0, indicating generally low quality and reliability. Most videos were posted by healthcare personnel (81.5%), predominantly urologists (50.6%). TikTok videos were longer and had higher likes, comments, and collections (all P < 0.001). mDISCERN was higher on TikTok (P = 0.047), while GQS did not differ (P = 0.580). Video length correlated with GQS (r = 0.46) and mDISCERN (r = 0.41), whereas engagement metrics were not reliable proxies for credibility.
conclusionsPheochromocytoma-related short videos on TikTok and Kwai show limited quality and reliability despite professional authorship. Improvements should prioritize verifiable sources and decision-relevant risk framing, supported by platform-level quality labeling and distribution strategies.
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.