ArticleDigital health
Science or hype? A cross-sectional analysis of the quality of Hodgkin lymphoma-related short videos.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Quality and reliability of semaglutide-related health information on Chinese short-video platforms: a cross-sectional study of Bilibili and TikTok.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is a malignant tumor of the lymphatic system. With the rapid expansion of short video platforms, the public increasingly relies on them for medical information, yet the scientific rigor and reliability of such content remain inconsistent. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the content and quality of HL-related videos on TikTok and Bilibili. Methods: In August 2025, videos related to "Hodgkin lymphoma" were searched on TikTok and Bilibili. After applying predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, video sources, engagement metrics, and content features were collected. Video quality and reliability were assessed using three validated tools: the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks, the Global Quality Score (GQS), and the modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) scale. Differences by uploader type, platform, and audience engagement were also analyzed. Results: A total of 225 videos were included (155 from TikTok and 70 from Bilibili). TikTok videos were shorter but had significantly higher engagement ( Conclusion: TikTok and Bilibili differ significantly in the sources and quality of HL-related videos. Although high-quality short videos can improve public health literacy, their popularity depends more on style and reach than on scientific quality. Platforms should enhance professional certification and content review to promote the standardized dissemination of evidence-based medical knowledge.
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.