ArticleMedicine2026
Content characteristics and information quality of flap transplantation surgery videos on TikTok and Bilibili: A cross-sectional study.
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
Flap transplantation is a crucial reconstructive surgical technique, yet public understanding of its principles and postoperative management remains limited. With the rapid rise of short-form video platforms, social media has become an important medium for disseminating medical information. This study aimed to evaluate the content characteristics, educational quality, and reliability of flap transplantation surgery videos on TikTok and Bilibili. A cross-sectional content analysis was conducted to evaluate short videos related to flap transplantation surgery on TikTok and Bilibili. Videos were retrieved on September 25, 2025, using the Chinese keyword "" ("flap transplantation surgery"), and searches were performed on the same day to reduce algorithm-related bias. After excluding duplicate, irrelevant, and commercial content, 236 videos were included. Two independent researchers extracted and verified data on video characteristics and engagement metrics. Educational content and information quality were assessed using the Global Quality Scale (GQS), modified DISCERN (mDISCERN), and Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) criteria. Statistical analyses were performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 27.0 with the Mann-Whitney U test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and Spearman correlation. Statistical significance was set at P < .05. Overall, the videos demonstrated moderate quality, with median scores of 3.00 (interquartile range 3.00-4.00) for GQS, 3.00 (2.00-3.00) for mDISCERN, and 3.00 (3.00-4.00) for JAMA. TikTok videos were significantly shorter (52.50 seconds vs 162.00 seconds, P < .001) but achieved higher GQS, mDISCERN, and JAMA scores (P < .001) compared with Bilibili. Specialist physicians accounted for 69.1% of uploaders and produced videos with significantly higher quality than science communicators or institutional/patient accounts (all pairwise P < .05). Engagement indicators such as likes and shares were strongly correlated with each other (up to r = 0.92) but not with video quality (P > .05). TikTok and Bilibili play an increasing role in disseminating surgical knowledge about flap transplantation. Although TikTok videos were shorter, they demonstrated higher structural clarity and informational reliability. Videos uploaded by physicians showed the highest accuracy and transparency, while nonprofessional content exhibited lower educational value. These findings highlight the need for improved content regulation, professional participation, and evidence-based design to enhance the educational impact of medical short videos.
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.