ArticleNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2026
Evaluating the quality and reliability of DILI in Chinese videos on TikTok (Douyin) and BiliBili: cross-sectional content analysis study.
Article in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study is a cross-sectional analysis aimed at systematically evaluating the information quality and reliability of popular science content related to drug-induced liver injury (DILI) on the two major Chinese video platforms, TikTok (Douyin) and BiliBili, and analyzing its content characteristics. On December 20, 2025, searches were conducted in the Chinese versions of the TikTok (Douyin) and BiliBili mobile applications using "" as the single keyword. Exclude content that does not meet the requirements based on the exclusion criteria, and ultimately retain the top 100 videos from each platform that meet the standards for analysis (N = 200). Two trained reviewers independently performed blinded assessments using the Global Quality Score (GQS), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, and the modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) tool. Non-parametric tests were used to compare differences between groups, and Spearman correlation analysis was employed to explore the relationship between video characteristics and quality scores. User engagement metrics (likes, favorites, shares) for TikTok (Douyin) videos were significantly higher than those for BiliBili (p < 0.001). In terms of information quality, TikTok (Douyin) videos scored significantly higher than BiliBili on the GQS, JAMA, and mDISCERN scales (p < 0.001). There were differences in quality across content types: videos on "medication knowledge" received the highest mDISCERN reliability scores and "disease knowledge" videos scored higher in GQS practicality. Correlation analysis showed a weak positive correlation between user engagement metrics and mDISCERN scores. Among the 107 videos mentioning liver injury-related drugs, chemical drugs (antibacterial, chemotherapeutic, anti-tuberculosis drugs, and anti-inflammatory drugs) and traditional Chinese medicines (such as He Shou Wu) were mentioned most frequently. In this cross-sectional sample, TikTok (Douyin) videos demonstrated higher quality scores and user engagement than those on BiliBili, while professionals outperformed general users only on the JAMA criteria. Although some videos mentioned medications associated with liver injury, the information was generally oversimplified and biased toward trending topics. Hence, active information seekers should critically appraise the scientific soundness of medical short videos on platforms like TikTok and BiliBili before making healthcare decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42283839What 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.