ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2026
The quality and reliability of short videos about chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on TikTok and Bilibili: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2026. 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.
- Content Quality, Reliability, and Factors Associated With Likes of Venous Thromboembolism-Related Short Videos on TikTok and Bilibili: A Cross-Platform Analysis.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) continues to pose a significant global health burden, while social media platforms such as TikTok and Bilibili have become important sources of public health information. However, the quality and reliability of video content on these platforms remain unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the quality and reliability of COPD-related short videos on TikTok and Bilibili in China. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on 275 COPD-related short videos on TikTok and Bilibili. Video characteristics, uploader types, content themes, and presentation formats were extracted. Video quality and reliability were evaluated using the Global Quality Score (GQS), the modified Decision-making Information Support Criteria for Evaluating the Reliability of Non-randomised Studies (mDISCERN) tool, the Results: Compared to Bilibili, TikTok was more popular, although the length of the videos on TikTok was shorter than that of the videos on Bilibili (P<0.001). Videos on Bilibili had significantly higher GQS scores (P<0.001) and mDISCERN scores (P=0.01) than those on TikTok. Videos from medical practitioners and science communicators generally exhibited higher quality and reliability compared to those from general users across most assessment tools. Medical practitioners scored higher on the JAMA criteria compared to science communicators, with no significant differences observed in the other assessment tools. Negative correlations were found between GQS scores and engagement metrics (likes, comments, and shares), while positive correlations were found between VIQI scores and all four engagement metrics. Conclusions: COPD-related videos on TikTok and Bilibili were deficient in quality and reliability. Enhancing the educational value of health information on both platforms requires greater involvement from medical practitioners and science communicators, alongside improved platform-level content regulation.
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.