ArticleLupus science & medicine2026
Evaluating the reliability and quality of lupus nephritis educational content on TikTok and Bilibili: a cross-sectional content analysis.
Article in Lupus science & 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo analyse the content distribution and quality of lupus nephritis (LN)-related short videos on TikTok and Bilibili, compare differences across uploader types and examine the relationship between user engagement metrics and information reliability, thereby providing evidence to improve digital health communication strategies.
methodsThis cross-sectional study screened 250 LN-related videos from TikTok (n=143) and Bilibili (n=107). Basic video characteristics and uploader types were recorded. The Global Quality Score (GQS), modified DISCERN (mDISCERN; DISCERN, a validated instrument for evaluating the reliability of health information) and a content completeness instrument were used to assess video quality. All videos were independently evaluated by three senior rheumatology clinicians. Spearman correlation analysis was applied to evaluate associations between engagement indicators and quality scores.
resultsUser engagement indicators (likes, comments, shares and favourites) and the proportion of professional uploaders were significantly higher on TikTok than on Bilibili (p<0.05). Although Bilibili videos were significantly longer, TikTok videos provided more comprehensive coverage of clinical manifestations and treatment (p<0.05). No significant difference in overall GQS was found between platforms (p>0.05), whereas TikTok achieved a slightly higher mDISCERN score (p<0.05). Professional institutions significantly outperformed non-professional uploaders across all quality indicators (p<0.05). Despite strong positive correlations among engagement indicators, major popularity metrics showed limited alignment with scientific quality scores.
conclusionThe quality of LN-related information on short-video platforms varies widely, with popularity metrics poorly reflecting scientifically assessed content quality. While TikTok shows a slight advantage in information reliability, both platforms require improvement in evidentiary support and content completeness. Professional institutions consistently produced higher-quality content, underscoring the need for broader participation by authoritative medical sources. A multistakeholder governance framework emphasising professional input, content quality standards and algorithm optimisation is essential to foster a trustworthy digital health ecosystem.
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.