ArticleDigital health
Quality and reliability of kidney stone information on TikTok and Bilibili: A cross-sectional study.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: With rising kidney stone prevalence in China (currently 7.54%), patients increasingly seek health information through short video platforms like TikTok and Bilibili. However, the quality and reliability of kidney stone-related content on these platforms remains unclear, potentially affecting patient understanding and health decisions. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we analyzed 172 kidney stone videos from TikTok (n=95) and Bilibili (n=77). Videos were categorized by uploader type: professional individuals (67.44%), nonprofessional individuals (22.09%), professional institutions (6.40%), and nonprofessional institutions (4.07%). Quality assessment utilized the Global Quality Score (GQS) and modified DISCERN tool, evaluating content comprehensiveness across six domains: definition, symptoms, risk factors, evaluation, management, and outcomes. Statistical analyses compared platform differences and uploader type variations. Results: TikTok demonstrated significantly higher engagement metrics (median views: 140,255 vs. 10,489; comments: 207 vs. 37; likes: 703 vs. 78) but shorter video duration (53s vs. 121s, p<0.001). Although the median DISCERN score was 2 on both platforms, the distribution was significantly different (p=0.013), with Bilibili videos achieving higher scores (median GQS: 3.0 vs. 2.0, p=0.002; DISCERN: 2.0 vs. 2.0, p=0.013). Professional institutions produced highest-quality content across both platforms (GQS: 3.0-4.0; DISCERN: 2.0-3.0), significantly outperforming nonprofessional creators (p<0.001). Content analysis revealed inadequate coverage of comprehensive kidney stone education, with most videos focusing on basic symptoms and management rather than prevention and risk factors. Conclusion: While professional creators maintain higher content quality, overall kidney stone information quality on short video platforms remains suboptimal. Platform-specific differences suggest Bilibili's longer format enables more comprehensive education despite lower engagement. Enhanced content standards and professional creator incentivization are needed to improve kidney stone health education on social media platforms.
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.