ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2026
TikTok, RedNote, and Bilibili as sources of medical information on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a cross-platform content analysis.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) poses a significant public health burden, particularly in China. This study mainly assessed the quality of clinical information and prevalent misinformation related to COPD-related short videos on TikTok, RedNote, and Bilibili. Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted using videos collected on November 15, 2025. "Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease" was used as the search keyword on TikTok, RedNote, and Bilibili. After removing duplicate and irrelevant videos, 510 videos (167 from TikTok, 167 from RedNote, and 176 from Bilibili) were included in the analysis. Video characteristics, uploader types, and content categories were documented. The quality of information was assessed using the Global Quality Scale (GQS) and the modified Decision-Making Information Support Criteria for Evaluating the Reliability of Non-randomized Studies (mDISCERN) instrument. Results: TikTok videos exhibited significantly higher user engagement (likes, comments, shares, and saves) than RedNote and Bilibili videos (P<0.001). However, regarding information quality, Bilibili videos achieved significantly higher GQS and mDISCERN scores than TikTok and RedNote videos (P<0.001). Content produced by professional institutions and individuals received significantly higher scores than that produced by nonprofessional institutions. A strong positive correlation was found among the popularity metrics, but no significant correlation was found between popularity indicators and quality scores. Conclusions: COPD-related short videos displayed uneven clinical information quality despite broad public exposure. Viral popular content cannot guarantee medical authenticity, and widespread misinformation may interfere with regular patient care. Sufficient professional participation and strict platform content supervision are therefore required to standardize online COPD health education and reduce clinical risks.
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.