ArticlePregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.)2026
Virality versus veracity: A systematic review of TikTok information on prenatal aneuploidy testing.
Article in Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.), 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
Objective: Pregnant people are increasingly utilizing TikTok to understand medical information. However, the accuracy and reliability of this content remain largely unexamined. This study aimed to evaluate videos on prenatal aneuploidy testing by engagement, reliability, and quality, comparing results by content category and account type. Study design: Researchers conducted TikTok searches (May-July 2025) using 11 sets of keywords. The first 100 videos for each search were collected and screened with inclusion and exclusion criteria. Videos were manually categorized based on content type and account type (i.e., healthcare professionals, laypeople, or other). Objective data collected directly from TikTok included video length and engagement metrics (views, likes, and comments). Two independent reviewers used the modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) criteria to assess reliability and the Global Quality Scale (GQS) to assess quality. Engagement metrics, mDISCERN, and GQS were compared across video category and account type using Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Results: A total of 1100 videos were identified, and 541 videos met the inclusion criteria for full review. A total of 69.9% ( Conclusion: TikTok provides unreliable and low-quality medical information on aneuploidy testing in pregnancy. Healthcare professionals' videos are higher in quality and reliability but have lower views than those by laypeople. These findings highlight the need for strategies to improve the reach of accurate, evidence-based prenatal information on social media platforms.
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.