ArticleObesity surgery2026
Quality, Reliability, and Content Characteristics of Metabolic Bariatric Surgery Videos on TikTok, YouTube, and Facebook: A Mixed-Methods Cross-Platform Analysis.
Article in Obesity surgery, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSocial media platforms have become major sources of health information, including content related to metabolic bariatric surgery (MBS). While these platforms offer wide accessibility and high user engagement, concerns remain regarding the quality, reliability, and completeness of the information presented. Comparative evaluations across platforms integrating both quantitative quality assessment and qualitative insights are limited.
methodsA cross-sectional mixed-methods content analysis was conducted on 45 publicly available videos (15 per platform) from TikTok, YouTube, and Facebook, identified using standardized search terms. Data extraction included video metadata, engagement metrics, uploader characteristics, and content features. Video quality and reliability were assessed using the Video Information and Quality Index (VIQI), Global Quality Score (GQS), and DISCERN instrument. Inter-rater reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients. Additionally, thematic analysis of rater comments was performed to explore qualitative content patterns.
resultsSignificant differences were observed across platforms in video duration, content characteristics, and engagement (p < 0.001). TikTok videos were shortest and demonstrated the highest median views and engagement rates, while YouTube videos were longest and Facebook videos showed moderate duration and engagement. Quality assessment revealed significantly lower VIQI, GQS, and DISCERN scores for YouTube compared with TikTok and Facebook (p < 0.001), with no significant difference between TikTok and Facebook. High-quality content (GQS ≥ 4) was absent on YouTube but present in 60-66.7% of TikTok and Facebook videos. Inter-rater reliability was good to excellent across all tools (ICC range: 0.81-0.88). Qualitative analysis demonstrated recurring themes of incomplete clinical information, limited discussion of risks, and a predominance of positively framed narratives, especially in short-form content.
conclusionMBS-related content on social media varies significantly across platforms in terms of quality, reliability, and engagement. While TikTok and Facebook demonstrated higher overall quality scores than YouTube, all platforms exhibited important deficiencies in critical patient-centered information. High engagement does not equate to high informational quality. These findings highlight the need for improved content regulation, increased involvement of healthcare professionals, and development of standardized guidelines to enhance the educational value of bariatric surgery information on social media.
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.