ArticleBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2026
[Menstruation on YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok: a content and quality analysis].
Article in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundYoung people and adults are increasingly searching for information about menstruation on social media. Against this background, the present study aimed, for the first time, to examine the content and quality of German-language menstruation videos on YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok. The study addresses research questions (RQ) on content provider types (RQ1), content (RQ2), and the quality of menstruation videos (RQ3) as well as audience reactions (RQ4).
methodsIn 2024, a sample of N = 500 popular menstruation videos was drawn from YouTube (150), Instagram (150), and TikTok (200). For each video, up to 20 of the most liked topic-related audience comments were included (N = 6314). Videos and comments were analyzed using reliability-tested codebooks. Data analysis was performed with R. The study is preregistered, and all data, materials, and analysis scripts are publicly available.
resultsThe included menstruation videos predominantly originated from laypersons (42%) and less frequently from healthcare professionals (17%; RQ1). The portrayal of menstruation was mostly neutral (52%); negative (15%) or positive (13%) depictions were less frequent. Content-wise, the videos primarily addressed the experience of menstruation (e.g., pain) and practical management of bleeding (e.g., menstrual products; RQ2). According to quality criteria for evidence-based health information, substantial deficits were observed (RQ3). Comment sections were used by viewers to share personal experiences and to ask questions (RQ4). DISCUSSION: Future research and practical measures are necessary to further assess and improve the quality of social media videos about menstruation.
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.