ArticleDigital health
Evaluating the reliability and quality of asthma educational content on TikTok and Bilibili: A cross-sectional content analysis.
Article in Digital health. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Asthma is a widespread chronic inflammatory airway disease posing a global health challenge. The digital era has made platforms like TikTok and Bilibili key sources for asthma education. However, the quality of asthma information on these platforms is unclear, raising concerns about content accuracy and reliability. This study evaluates the reliability and quality of asthma educational videos on TikTok and Bilibili. Methods: Using "asthma" as a keyword, the top 100 videos from each platform were analyzed after excluding duplicates and irrelevant content, totaling 187 videos. All content was retrieved from the mainland-China versions of TikTok and Bilibili, and the videos analyzed were therefore limited to those uploaded and accessible within China. Videos were assessed by two senior physicians using modified DISCERN and GQS tools for reliability and quality, analyzing associations with uploader types and user engagement. Nonparametric statistical methods were applied for data analysis. Results: Bilibili videos accounted for 51.34% of the sample, with higher median likes (101.50 vs 42.00, Conclusion: Our data indicate that Bilibili videos were rated as higher quality and more reliable than those on TikTok, yet both sites reward popularity over accuracy. Users seeking evidence-based asthma information should select content uploaded by verified hospitals or certified specialists and cross-check any health claims made by non-verified influencers.
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.