ArticleScientific reports2025
YouTube and Bilibili as sources of information on oral cancer: cross-sectional content analysis study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality and reliability of osteoporosis-related health information on short-video platforms: a multi-source cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Evaluating pulpitis-related content on Chinese social media: platform comparison, dental practitioner impact and associated factors.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Content Gaps and Informational Quality of TikTok and Bilibili Videos on Pit and Fissure Sealing in China: A Cross-Sectional Study.Oral health & preventive dentistry · 2026Article
- Quality and reliability of anxiety disorder-related short videos on TikTok and Bilibili: A cross-sectional study.Medicine · 2026Article
- Linking Perceived Hospital-Generated Content to Psychological Well-Being Through Integrated Cognitive and Emotional Resilience Mechanisms Among Emerging Adults.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Quality and readability of online penile-cancer information: a Cross-Sectional Web Study.International journal of impotence research · 2026Article
- Bilibili/TikTok videos as sources of health information about atrial septal defect: a content and quality analysis.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Bilibili/TikTok videos as sources of HPV-related medical information: a cross-sectional content analysis.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Quality and reliability of semaglutide content on different Chinese short video platforms: a study focusing on side effects.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Agreement between artificial intelligence and expert evaluation in assessing the quality of asthma health education videos on YouTube and Bilibili: cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Evaluating the quality and reliability of cervical cancer related videos on YouTube, Bilibili, and Tiktok: a cross-sectional analysis.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to evaluate the informational quality of oral cancer-related videos on YouTube and Bilibili. A total of 300 oral videos that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were selected for analysis. The selection comprised 150 videos from 111 uploaders on YouTube and 150 videos from 134 uploaders on Bilibili. YouTube videos received a greater number of views and likes, while there was no significant difference in average likes per 30 days or comments between the two platforms. The majority of YouTube uploaders were hospitals/non-profit organizations (66.7%) and for-profit companies (17.1%), while Bilibili uploaders were mainly self-media (55.2%) and doctors (29.1%). YouTube videos covered a broader range of topics compared to Bilibili videos. Though solo narration was the most prevalent video style across both platforms, YouTube exhibited a higher preference for TV shows/documentaries (31.3%). Video quality was assessed using the four tools: Though mDISCERN (modified DISCERN) and PEMAT-Actionability (Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool) were similar across platforms, YouTube videos scored higher on PEMAT-Understandability, VIQI (Video Information and Quality Index), and GQS (Global Quality Score) in comparison to Bilibili videos. Videos produced by health professionals were considered more reliable. Spearman correlation analysis revealed no strong relationships between video quality and audience interaction. In conclusion, YouTube videos exhibited higher audience engagement and video quality, yet improvements are needed on both platforms. In order to promote high-quality health information, it is essential to encourage the development of more professional content creators and to optimize platform algorithms.
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.