ArticleMedicine2026
Quality and reliability of short videos about keloid on TikTok: A 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
TikTok and similar short-form video services are now widely adopted as prominent platforms for circulating health knowledge. However, the quality of content on keloid remains unclear. Keloid, a pathological scar with significant physical and psychological impact, necessitates accurate public education. This cross-sectional study analyzed 122 keloid-related TikTok videos on February 9, 2026, using an unlogged search to minimize bias. Video quality was assessed with 3 scoring systems: the global quality score, the modified DISCERN, and the benchmark criteria of the Journal of the American Medical Association, and uploader categories, content themes, and engagement metrics were analyzed. Videos featured a median length of 65.5 seconds and strong user engagement, but holistic quality was modest (median global quality score = 3.0, modified DISCERN = 2.0, Journal of the American Medical Association = 3.0). Content predominantly covered treatment (86.1%) and clinical manifestations (52.5%), whereas etiology, diagnosis, and recurrence were underrepresented. Videos from plastic surgeons and healthcare professionals had significantly higher quality scores than those from individual users (P < .05). There was no relationship found between engagement metrics and quality. In conclusion, keloid-related TikTok videos achieve wide reach but have limited informational quality, emphasizing the need for enhanced professional involvement and more comprehensive content to improve educational value.
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.