ArticleMedicine2026
Quality assessment and dissemination of varicocele health information on short-video platforms: A comparative study of TikTok and Bilibili.
Article in Medicine, 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
TikTok and Bilibili have gradually become important sources for the public to obtain health information. This study aims to evaluate the content, quality, and reliability of varicocele-related videos. We conducted a search on both platforms using the keyword "varicocele" and collected the top 150 videos based on the default rankings, along with video duration, engagement metrics, uploader identity, and video content. Videos were assessed using the global quality score (GQS) and modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) scales. Mann-Whitney U tests and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare differences between groups. Spearman correlation analysis was employed to evaluate the relationships between video features, engagement, and quality. A total of 255 videos were included. The content of the videos was primarily focused on treatment (71.37%), with limited coverage of prevention (32.16%). The median GQS score was 3.00 (interquartile range (IQR): 3.00-4.00), and the median mDISCERN score was 2.00 (IQR: 2.00-2.00). TikTok demonstrated a higher GQS score than Bilibili (P < .05). Compared to individual users and non-specialists, videos uploaded by specialists scored higher on both GQS and mDISCERN (P < .05). No significant correlation was found between engagement metrics and either GQS or mDISCERN (P > .05). The quality and reliability of varicocele-related videos are suboptimal, with insufficient coverage of prevention content. Videos uploaded by specialists demonstrated higher quality and reliability. Engagement metrics were not correlated with video quality or reliability. Future platforms should strengthen content monitoring and review processes and provide support for professional creators to enhance the credibility and educational value of digital health communication.
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.