ArticleFrontiers in digital health2026
Short-form video platforms as a source of ankylosing spondylitis information: a cross-sectional content analysis.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2026. 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.
- The quality and reliability of short videos about cervical spondylosis on TikTok and Redbook: a cross-sectional study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Short-video platforms have become major channels for health information dissemination, yet the quality and reliability of content on ankylosing spondylitis (AS) remain underexplored. Objective: This study aimed to systematically evaluate the quality, reliability, and characteristics of AS-related short videos on three major Chinese platforms: TikTok, Bilibili, and rednote. Methods: A cross-sectional content analysis was conducted on 300 videos (100 per platform) collected in November 2025. Video uploaders were categorized as professional physicians, non-professional physicians, individual users, or institutions. Four validated instruments-modified DISCERN (mDISCERN), Global Quality Scale (GQS), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) criteria, and Video Information Quality Index (VIQI)-were used to assess reliability, completeness, and production quality. User engagement metrics, including likes, shares, comments, and collections, were also analyzed. Results: Most videos were uploaded by professional physicians and primarily focused on clinical manifestations and treatment. Videos presented in animated or lecture-style formats demonstrated higher information quality and reliability, whereas casually recorded videos consistently scored lower across multiple assessment tools. Overall, the quality of AS-related short videos was moderate. In unadjusted analyses, collections were positively associated with information quality, suggesting that users may preferentially retain more informative content. However, after accounting for platform characteristics and exposure-related factors, information quality was not a consistent independent driver of relative engagement, and mDISCERN showed an inverse association with standardized collection levels. Other engagement indicators, including likes, comments, shares, and follower counts, showed weak or inconsistent relationships with video quality. Conclusion: Although AS-related short videos are predominantly produced by physicians, the overall quality remains suboptimal. Information quality appears to influence certain user behaviors, such as content saving, but does not consistently translate into higher overall engagement. These findings highlight the limitations of using engagement metrics as proxies for content quality. Users should prioritize content from verified medical professionals, and platforms may consider integrating quality-oriented indicators and improving certification systems to enhance health information dissemination.
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.