ArticleMedicine2026
Evaluating the reliability and quality of retinal detachment educational content on TikTok and Bilibili: A cross-sectional content analysis.
Article in Medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Retinal detachment (RD) is a sight-threatening emergency where public awareness of early symptoms is critical. Bilibili and TikTok now serve as prominent health information channels, yet RD-related video content quality and reliability remain unassessed. This cross-sectional study systematically retrieved the top 150 videos using the keyword "retinal detachment" from Bilibili and TikTok in October 2025. Following exclusion criteria application, 224 videos underwent analysis. Two ophthalmologists independently assessed video quality and reliability using the Global Quality Scale (GQS), modified DISCERN, and Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria. Analyses also covered content themes, uploader identity, and correlations with user engagement metrics. Among the 224 videos, overall quality was suboptimal (median scores: GQS = 2, modified DISCERN = 2, JAMA = 2). Treatment information dominated (67.86%), while content on symptoms (48.21%) and particularly prevention (32.59%) was scarce. Although overall scores were low, the distributions of GQS (P = .014) and JAMA (P = .002) scores differed significantly between self-identified professional and nonprofessional uploaders, despite identical group medians. A key finding was the negligible correlation between user engagement metrics and quality scores, indicating that popularity does not reflect content accuracy. Current RD information on short-form video platforms is characterized by generally low quality, significant content imbalance, and a disconnect between engagement and reliability. Urgent collaborative efforts among content creators, platform regulators, and healthcare institutions are needed to establish quality control standards, promote evidence-based content, and enhance public health literacy to leverage social media for improving RD outcomes.
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.