ArticleMedicine2026
The quality and reliability of short videos about muscle strain on Bilibili and TikTok: 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Muscle strain-related information is extensively shared on short video platforms, yet the quality and reliability of such content remain unassessed. This study aimed to evaluate the quality and reliability of muscle strain videos on Bilibili and TikTok. A total of 157 eligible videos were assessed using the Global Quality Score (GQS) and modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) scales. Videos were graded as high (GQS 4 to 5, mDISCERN 4 to 5), medium (GQS 3, mDISCERN 3) or low (GQS 1 to 2, mDISCERN 0-2) based on information completeness, logicality, source reliability, and objectivity. Bilibili's video quality was predominantly medium to high, while TikTok's quality showed polarization with more medium and low-scoring content. Professional institution-generated videos and scientific introduction-themed content achieved the highest scores; therapeutic content accounted for 82.8% of all videos but was mostly low to medium in quality, and causal content only made up 2.5%. TikTok had significantly higher user interaction metrics than Bilibili (all P < .05), and professional individual creators had higher video sharing volumes than professional institutions (P = .034). GQS was strongly positively correlated with mDISCERN (R = 0.86, P < .001); all interaction indicators were highly positively correlated (R ≥ 0.81, P < .001), and no significant correlation was found between interaction metrics and content quality (e.g., correlation coefficient between GQS and likes = 0.18, P > .05). Bilibili demonstrated a better overall quality of muscle strain videos compared to TikTok, which exhibited a more polarized quality distribution with a higher proportion of low-quality content. TikTok showed significantly higher user interactivity, but engagement metrics were not associated with content quality. Both platforms presented an unbalanced topic supply, with an overrepresentation of therapeutic content and a severe scarcity of causal content. These findings highlight the need for optimizing the ecosystem of health popular science short videos, providing targeted references for the public, platforms, and professionals to improve the quality and reliability of muscle strain information online.
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.