Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41509869›Full record

ArticleDigital health

The quality and reliability of herpes zoster information on TikTok and Bilibili: A cross-sectional study.

Kaidi Zhao, Jiashu Liu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors.

Kaidi ZhaoDepartment of Dermatology, Xi'an Jiaotong University Second Affiliated Hospital, Xi'an, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6716-3179
Jiashu LiuDepartment of Dermatology, Xi'an Children's Hospital, Xi'an, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4451-7573

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Herpes zoster (HZ) is a common viral skin disease. As short video platforms have become an important source of health information, evaluating the quality of HZ-related content is increasingly important. Methods: This cross-sectional study analyzed 186 HZ-related videos collected from the Chinese short video platforms TikTok (n = 96) and Bilibili (n = 90) from 12 to 16 July 2025. Video characteristics (duration, likes, shares, comments, and collections), content domains (etiology, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis), and uploader identity were recorded. Quality was evaluated using the Global Quality Score (GQS) and modified DISCERN (mDISCERN). Results: TikTok videos had shorter durations (47.5 vs.196.0 seconds) but significantly higher engagement metrics, including likes (481.5 vs. 29.5), comments (20.5 vs. 3.5), and shares (152.5 vs. 19.0). Most videos were uploaded by pain medicine specialists (31.72%), followed by traditional Chinese medicine physicians (27.96%) and dermatologists (19.35%). Treatment was the most frequently addressed topic (67.74%), whereas prognosis was least discussed (18.28%). The median GQS was 2.00 (interquartile range (IQR): 1.00-3.00) and the mDISCERN score was 3.00 (IQR 1.00-3.00). Dermatologists achieved higher GQS and mDISCERN scores than patients and traditional Chinese medicine physicians (p < 0.05). No significant correlations were observed between engagement metrics and GQS scores (p > 0.05). Conclusions: HZ-related videos on short video platforms are of moderate quality and skewed toward treatment. Dermatologists involvement and better content regulation are needed. More emphasis should be placed on prognosis education to enhance public understanding.

Indexed as

Bilibilihealth communicationHZTikTokvideo quality assessment

Identifiers

PMID41509869
PMCPMC12775287

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.