ArticleDigital health
Evaluating the reliability and quality of osteoporosis content on TikTok and BiliBili: A cross-sectional content analysis.
Article in Digital health. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study evaluated the information quality and user engagement of osteoporosis-related videos on Bilibili and TikTok, and examined their associations with uploader characteristics, content topics, and video quality factors. Methods: On October 11, 2025, we conducted a systematic evaluation of the information quality and reliability of the top 100 Chinese-language short videos related to osteoporosis on TikTok and BiliBili platforms, ultimately including 171 valid videos for analysis. Using the Global Quality Scale (GQS) and a modified DISCERN instrument, we assessed multiple dimensions of video content. Furthermore, Spearman correlation analysis and the Kruskal-Wallis test were employed to examine how platform type, uploader category, and content characteristics influence video quality. Results: A total of 171 videos were included in the analysis, comprising 82 from Bilibili and 89 from Tiktok. Bilibili videos exhibited significantly longer durations compared to Tiktok videos (median 307.5 seconds vs. 151.0 seconds; P < 0.001). Conversely, Tiktok videos demonstrated significantly higher user engagement metrics, including median number of likes (3407.0 vs. 65.0; P < 0.001), collections (1432.0 vs. 78.0; P < 0.001), and shares (677.0 vs. 48.5; P < 0.001). Regarding uploader characteristics, professional institutions contributed only 4.1% of the total sample. Nevertheless, videos uploaded by professional institutions achieved the highest median GQS score (4.50) and mDISCERN score (4.00), significantly surpassing those uploaded by professional individuals and non-professional individuals (P = 0.011 and P < 0.001, respectively). User engagement metrics strongly intercorrelated ( Conclusions: Bilibili videos feature longer durations and more detailed content, whereas TikTok videos demonstrate superior user engagement. Videos uploaded by professional institutions attained higher quality ratings compared to other uploader types, although this finding is based on a small subsample (n=7) and should be interpreted with caution. Medication-related content attracted the greatest public attention. Nevertheless, the weak correlation between user engagement and quality scores indicates that high popularity does not equate to high informational reliability. These findings underscore the need to strengthen professional credentialing mechanisms and optimize algorithmic recommendations to enhance both the scientific accuracy and communicative reach of osteoporosis health information on short video 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.