ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2026
TikTok, Xiaohongshu, and Bilibili as sources of medical information on lung cancer: a multi-platform content evaluation.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 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
Background: Lung cancer remains a major public health burden, and short-video platforms have become an important source of health information. This study aimed to evaluate the characteristics and information quality of lung cancer-related videos on TikTok, Xiaohongshu, and Bilibili. Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted using lung cancer-related videos collected on December 25, 2025. "Lung cancer" was used as the search keyword on TikTok, Xiaohongshu, and Bilibili. After duplicates and irrelevant content were removed, 563 videos were analyzed. Video characteristics, uploader types, and content categories were recorded. Information quality and reliability were evaluated using the Global Quality Scale (GQS) and the Decision-making Information Support Criteria for Evaluating the Reliability of Non-randomized Studies (DISCERN) instrument by two independent reviewers. Multivariate ordinal logistic regression was used to examine the associations among uploader type, interaction metrics, video content, and video presentation format with video quality (GQS) and information reliability (DISCERN) separately. Results: Bilibili videos exhibited significantly higher user engagement metrics than TikTok and Xiaohongshu videos (all P<0.001). Regarding information quality, TikTok videos achieved significantly higher GQS scores than Xiaohongshu videos and higher DISCERN scores than both Xiaohongshu and Bilibili videos. Content produced by professional institutions and individuals scored significantly higher than that from non-professional sources. Videos focusing on lung cancer classification and disease mechanisms received the highest quality scores. A strong positive correlation was observed among popularity metrics. However, no significant correlation was observed between popularity indicators and quality scores across all three platforms. Ordinal logistic regression revealed that professional institution uploaders [odds ratio (OR) =5.33, P=0.03] and lung cancer classification content (OR =2.09, P=0.01) were independently associated with higher GQS scores. For DISCERN scores, professional individual uploaders (OR =8.81, P<0.001) and lecture-style presentations (OR =8.82, P=0.02) were significantly associated with higher scores. Conclusions: Lung cancer-related short videos on Chinese platforms demonstrate high user engagement but considerable variability in information quality across platforms. Enhanced professional involvement, improved platform governance, and increased public critical literacy are urgently needed to optimize digital health communication for lung cancer prevention and control.
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.