Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40593960›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

YouTube and Bilibili as sources of information on oral cancer: cross-sectional content analysis study.

Qilei Zhang, Zhe Li, Huiping Zhang, Ling Han, Shugang Zhao, Siyu Jia

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Qilei Zhang *Head and Neck Tumor Center, Hefei Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Sciences, No. 350, Shushan Hu Road, Hefei, 230031, Anhui, China.
Zhe Li *Head and Neck Tumor Center, Hefei Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Sciences, No. 350, Shushan Hu Road, Hefei, 230031, Anhui, China.
Huiping ZhangHead and Neck Tumor Center, Hefei Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Sciences, No. 350, Shushan Hu Road, Hefei, 230031, Anhui, China.
Ling HanBengbu Stomatological Hospital, Bengbu, China.
Shugang ZhaoHead and Neck Tumor Center, Hefei Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Sciences, No. 350, Shushan Hu Road, Hefei, 230031, Anhui, China.
Siyu JiaHead and Neck Tumor Center, Hefei Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Sciences, No. 350, Shushan Hu Road, Hefei, 230031, Anhui, China. 18855169838@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Information DisseminationMouth NeoplasmsSocial MediaVideo RecordingCross-Sectional StudiesHumansInformation SourcesPatient Education as TopicInformation qualityOral cancerPatient educationPublic educationPublic healthSocial media

Identifiers

PMID40593960
PMCPMC12214728

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.