Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42460162›Full record

ReviewDigital health

Ophthalmic health communication in the video-based social media era: A narrative review of information quality, engagement dynamics, and professional education.

Yizhou Yang, Yuecheng Ren, Luze Liu, Yue Li, Xuanqiao Lin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Yizhou YangDepartment of Ophthalmology, Eye, Ear, Nose, And Throat Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Yuecheng RenDepartment of Ophthalmology, Jiaxing Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital Affiliated to Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Jiaxing, Zhejiang, China.
Luze LiuDepartment of Ophthalmology, Nanjing Tongren Hospital.
Yue LiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Yangpu Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine.
Xuanqiao LinDepartment of Ophthalmology, Eye, Ear, Nose, And Throat Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-4278-290X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the rapid ascent of video-based social media, platforms like TikTok and YouTube have become primary sources of ophthalmic health information, shaping both patient perceptions and professional development. This narrative review synthesizes evidence from 76 empirical studies to evaluate the quality and reliability of ophthalmic video content. We identify a persistent engagement paradox, where algorithm-driven metrics such as view counts and shares often favor simplified, emotionally resonant, or visually striking narratives over medically accurate and balanced counseling. Clinician-produced content generally showed higher clinical integrity in the included studies, but it often received lower engagement than peer-led experiential narratives. Beyond patient-facing education, we explore the emerging role of video platforms as professional-facing education for residents, highlighting the risks of survivor bias in unedited or curated operative footage. Furthermore, the visual-centric nature of ophthalmology introduces unique ethical challenges, particularly regarding the anonymization of recognizable facial features and the permanence of digital consent. As Generative AI introduces new risks of sophisticated deepfake misinformation, this review emphasizes the urgent need for multi-modal assessment tools and active professional stewardship to ensure the integrity of digital eye care.

Indexed as

health information qualityhealth literacyophthalmologyshort videosocial media < media

Identifiers

PMID42460162
PMCPMC13369419

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.