ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Popularity versus quality in TikTok educational videos on congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality assessment of dry eye educational videos on Xiaohongshu and differences by uploader type.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence assisted simulation and surgical video analytics for ophthalmic surgery training and competence development.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction is a common ocular condition in early infancy and may lead to neonatal dacryocystitis or severe infection if not treated promptly. Short-video platforms such as TikTok are used by young parents to obtain health information, but the quality of related videos remains unclear. This study evaluated the quality of TikTok videos on congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction and its association with uploader type and user engagement. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional review of TikTok videos retrieved with predefined keywords. We included 108 videos, classified by uploader type, and extracted characteristics, engagement metrics, and coverage of six content domains. Two attending ophthalmologists independently rated each video using DISCERN, the Global Quality Score, and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audiovisual Materials. Group differences and Spearman correlations were analyzed. Results: Among 108 videos, 62 (57.4%) were uploaded by medical professionals and 18 (16.7%) by non-Profit organizations, with a median duration of 48.5 s and median numbers of likes, comments, favorites and shares of 68, 8, 13, and 24, respectively. Videos uploaded by non-Profit organizations and medical professionals achieved substantially higher DISCERN scores (about 59.22 and 50.00 vs. 37.50 and 19.40), Global Quality Scores (median 4.5 and 4.0 vs. 3.0 and 1.0), and Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audiovisual Materials understandability (median 92.31 and 84.62% vs. 73.08 and 53.85%) and actionability (both 75.00% vs. 66.67 and 50.00%) than those uploaded by non-Medical individuals and for-profit organizations (all Conclusion: TikTok videos on congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction show marked heterogeneity in content completeness and educational quality, largely determined by uploader type. Non-Profit organizations and medical professionals produce more reliable, understandable, and actionable videos, but these are not consistently more popular than lower-quality content. Clinicians and institutions should develop guideline-concordant short videos and direct parents toward trustworthy channels, while platforms consider mechanisms to highlight professionally verified pediatric eye-health information.
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.