ArticleDigital health
The quality and reliability of short videos about premature ovarian failure on Bilibili and TikTok: Cross-sectional study.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers.
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
45 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality assessment of public education short videos on robot-assisted cholecystectomy and analysis of audience preferences.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Quality assessment of lupus nephritis health information on China's mainstream short-form video platforms: A cross-sectional study.Medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Quality and reliability of anxiety disorder-related short videos on TikTok and Bilibili: A cross-sectional study.Medicine · 2026Article
- The Quality and Reliability of Short Videos About Psoriatic Arthritis on Bilibili and TikTok: Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of rheumatic diseases · 2026Article
- TikTok, Xiaohongshu, and Bilibili as sources of medical information on lung cancer: a multi-platform content evaluation.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Quality and reliability of short videos about keloid on TikTok: A cross-sectional study.Medicine · 2026Article
- Analysis of the content, quality, and reliability of sarcopenia-related videos on TikTok and Bilibili: A cross-sectional study.Medicine · 2026Article
- Alcohol-related health information on Chinese short-video platforms: a cross-sectional content analysis of Douyin and Bilibili.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The quality and reliability of short videos about chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on TikTok and Bilibili: a cross-sectional study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Quality and content evaluation of male HPV infection on Bilibili and TikTok: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Quality and reliability of pediatric inguinal hernia treatment information on TikTok and Bilibili.BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
- The reach-rigor paradox in health communication: a comparative analysis of congenital heart disease content quality and engagement on TikTok and Bilibili.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- The quality and reliability of short videos about choledocholithiasis on TikTok and Bilibili in China.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Quality and dissemination of nasopharyngeal cancer health information on TikTok and Bilibili: Cross-sectional study.Medicine · 2026Article
- The quality and reliability evaluation of Parkinson's disease-related short videos on social short video platforms: cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Engagement-quality mismatch in robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty short videos on TikTok and Bilibili.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Content, quality, and reliability of gout-related videos on TikTok and Bilibili: A cross-sectional study.Medicine · 2026Article
- Bilibili and TikTok as sources of information on atrophic gastritis and the quality of their content.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Premature ovarian failure (POF) is a condition where ovarian function ceases before age 40, leading to infertility and other health issues. As public health awareness increases, platforms like TikTok and Bilibili have become key sources for health-related content. However, the absence of peer review and regulatory oversight on short-video platforms may result in the spread of inaccurate or incomplete health information. This study evaluates the quality of videos related to POF on these platforms. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted, analyzing 187 POF-related videos from TikTok and Bilibili. The modified DISCERN and Global Quality Score (GQS) assessment tools were used to evaluate video reliability and quality. Data on video characteristics, including engagement metrics and content, were also collected. Statistical analyses were performed to assess differences between platforms, video sources, and video quality. Result: TikTok is more popular than Bilibili. Videos on both platforms related to POF had suboptimal quality, with TikTok's GQS median at 3 (2-3) and Bilibili's at 2 (1-3), showing a significant difference (p < 0.05). However, both had median modified DISCERN scores of 2 (1-3), with no significant difference (p > 0.05). On Bilibili, video duration was positively correlated with quality scores (p < 0.001), but no such correlation was found on TikTok. Symptoms of POF were the most common topic, with 29% of videos providing detailed explanations. Diagnosis and treatment were discussed in 16% and 7.4% of videos, respectively. Expert-uploaded videos demonstrated significantly higher quality than those from non-experts and personal users, with GQS and modified DISCERN scores of 3 (2-4) and 2 (1-3), respectively. Conclusions: TikTok had higher engagement and better quality than Bilibili, but both platforms had inadequate video quality and reliability on POF. Expert videos were more reliable. These findings highlight the need for better regulation and monitoring of health content on short-video platforms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.