ArticleBMC gastroenterology2026
Assessing the content and quality of gastrointestinal endoscopy videos on TikTok, Bilibili, and Kwai: a cross - sectional study.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGastrointestinal endoscopy is essential for diagnosing digestive diseases, yet public misconceptions persist. Short-video platforms (TikTok, Bilibili, Kwai) are now major health-information sources, but the quality of endoscopy-related content is inconsistent.
methodsWe analyzed 300 endoscopy videos from the three platforms, categorizing uploaders as medical or non-medical professionals and scoring content with Global Quality Score (GQS), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria and Modified DISCERN scores across six dimensions (definition, eligibility, preparation, procedure, techniques, management).
resultsOf the 300 videos analyzed, 63.3% were uploaded by medical professionals, with the highest proportion on TikTok (91.0%). Non-medical professionals contributed 36.7% of the videos, primarily on Bilibili and Kwai. TikTok and Kwai videos had higher user engagement (likes, comments, collections) but were shorter in duration compared to Bilibili videos. Quality assessments revealed significant differences among platforms, with TikTok videos scoring higher in reliability and accuracy (JAMA and Modified DISCERN scores) than Bilibili and Kwai videos. However, content completeness was generally low across all platforms, with most videos lacking comprehensive information on key aspects of gastrointestinal endoscopy.
conclusionsThe quality and comprehensiveness of gastrointestinal endoscopy-related videos on TikTok, Bilibili, and Kwai are unsatisfactory, with significant variations in content quality and user engagement. Efforts should be intensified to improve video content quality, encourage more contributions from medical professionals, optimize algorithms to prioritize high-quality content, and implement stricter content reviews to enhance public health education and the dissemination of accurate medical information.
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.