ArticleDigital health
A cross-sectional study on the quality of cervical cancer health information across multiple short video platforms: Analysis of content, quality, and dissemination characteristics.
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, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Digital tools to enhance adherence to cervical cancer prevention practices: systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- Quality and reliability of osteoporosis-related health information on short-video platforms: a multi-source cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Evaluating the content quality and trustworthiness of snakebite envenomation videos on social media platforms: insights from TikTok and Bilibili.Tropical medicine and health · 2026Article
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cervical cancer remains a serious global threat to women's health, with rising incidence and younger demographic impact, challenging reproductive health. Short-video platforms have become key public sources for health information due to digital health communication advances, yet the scientific accuracy and reliability of their cervical cancer content are widely questioned. A systematic evaluation of its quality and dissemination patterns is lacking. Objective: This cross-sectional study assessed cervical cancer-related videos on YouTube, TikTok, and Bilibili, examining content breadth, information quality, and dissemination impact. Methods: Videos were systematically retrieved in July 2025 using "cervical cancer" keywords across the three platforms. After applying inclusion/exclusion criteria, 201 videos were analyzed. Quality, reliability, and educational value were evaluated using the Global Quality Score (GQS), modified DISCERN, Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT-assessing understandability and actionability), and Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria. Platform differences were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis H test (significance p < 0.05). Results: Platform differences emerged: YouTube videos demonstrated the highest quality (GQS mean 3.47 ± 1.06 vs. Bilibili 2.85 ± 0.89, TikTok 3.09 ± 0.75; p = 0.001) and significantly higher PEMAT understandability (76.94 ± 10.43 vs. TikTok 70.14 ± 11.07; p < 0.001). TikTok had the strongest dissemination power. Content coverage was inadequate: only 50.2% mentioned screening, 33.3% covered human papillomavirus vaccination, and a mere 8.0% recommended male vaccination. Creator expertise significantly influenced outcomes: Professionals (doctors/researchers) had higher JAMA authority scores and PEMAT actionability. Patient-created videos generated the highest interaction but scored lowest on quality metrics. Conclusion: Cervical cancer information quality on short-video platforms is uneven. YouTube offers the highest overall quality, while TikTok achieves the widest reach but lacks content depth. Critical prevention information (e.g. male vaccination) has low coverage. Professional creators provide more reliable content but have limited reach. Platforms should enhance promotion of authoritative content and implement quality review mechanisms.
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.