ArticleMedicine2026
Quality and dissemination of nasopharyngeal cancer health information on TikTok and Bilibili: Cross-sectional study.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Nasopharyngeal cancer is a cancer originating from the nasopharyngeal epithelium. Health education serves as an effective measure for prevention and treatment. With the rapid development of short videos, platforms such as TikTok and Bilibili have become primary sources for health information. However, the quality of nasopharyngeal cancer-related videos on these platforms remains unexplored. This study aims to evaluate the information quality of short videos related to nasopharyngeal cancer on the TikTok and Bilibili platforms. A cross-sectional study was conducted on October 1, 2025; the top 100 short videos related to nasopharyngeal cancer were collected from TikTok and Bilibili through searches in Chinese. After extracting basic information, the global quality score (GQS) and the modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) tool were used to assess each video's quality and reliability. The GQS rating scale ranges from 1 (poor quality) to 5 (high-quality). The modified DISCERN scores range from 0 to 5, with higher scores indicating greater reliability. Additionally, Spearman correlation analysis was applied to examine relationships between video characteristics, GQS, and DISCERN scores. A total of 200 videos were included in the analysis, with 58.5% of the videos uploaded by healthcare professionals, 19.5% by science communicators, 14.0% by general users, and 8.0% by organizational users. The median GQS and mDISCERN scores for nasopharyngeal carcinoma videos were 3 and 2, respectively. TikTok videos showed significantly higher engagement compared to Bilibili, with median likes of 1018 vs 16, collections of 313 vs 14, comments of 206 vs 2, and shares of 282 vs 5 (all P < .001). No statistically significant differences were observed between TikTok and Bilibili in GQS or mDISCERN scores. The main content themes on both platforms were clinical manifestations and treatment, while prognosis was rarely discussed. Correlation analysis revealed strong correlations among interactive data points, but weak or negative correlations between interactive data and GQS or mDISCERN scores. The informational content and quality of nasopharyngeal cancer-related videos on TikTok and Bilibili require improvement. Enhanced management of health science popularization videos on short video platforms is needed to ensure the dissemination of accurate and reliable health information.
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.