ArticleBMC public health2026
Quality and reliability of health information about altitude sickness on Douyin and Bilibili: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundShort video platforms are increasingly used for health information in China, yet the quality of user generated content on altitude sickness remains unexamined. This study evaluated the quality, reliability, and content characteristics of altitude sickness videos on Douyin and Bilibili.
methodsA cross-sectional design was adopted. The Chinese search term "Altitude Sickness" was used to search on the Chinese short video platforms Douyin and Bilibili. The top 100 videos recommended by each platform were collected. Data on video publication, content, and characteristics were extracted. The Journal of the American Medical Association benchmark criteria (JAMA), modified DISCERN (mDISCERN), and Global Quality Score (GQS) tools were used to assess video reliability and quality. Statistical analysis involved descriptive and comparative methods to evaluate video characteristics and quality, as well as correlation analysis to examine their relationships. Analyses were conducted using SPSS 26.0, statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.
resultsA total of 161 videos (85 from Douyin, 76 from Bilibili) were ultimately included. The overall mean scores for the videos were 2.85 ± 0.75 for JAMA, 2.20 ± 0.79 for mDISCERN, and 2.57 ± 0.88 for GQS. The GQS score of videos from Bilibili was significantly higher than that from Douyin (P < 0.05). Videos published by professional institutions/individuals accounted for only 22.36%, but their content quality was significantly superior to that from non-professional institutions/individuals (P < 0.05). Correlation analysis showed that user interaction data (likes, comments) was negatively correlated with quality scores.
conclusionThe overall quality of altitude sickness videos on major Chinese short video platforms is suboptimal. Content from professional sources is significantly more reliable but remains a minority. Platform interaction metrics (such as likes and comments) do not constitute a reliable proxy for judging the scientific soundness of the content. The public should prioritize professionally sourced information, and platforms should enhance the visibility of evidence-based content.
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.