ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2026
Quality of Allergic Rhinitis Content Across Social Media Platforms.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 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.
- Quality of Allergic Rhinitis Content Across Social Media Platforms.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To assess the quality and engagement of allergic rhinitis-related short-form content on social media. Methods: A search across TikTok, Instagram Reels, Facebook Reels, and YouTube Shorts was conducted for allergic rhinitis-related hashtags. Posts were categorized by content category, author, and popularity. Content was analyzed with the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audiovisual Material (PEMAT-AV) to assess understandability, Global Quality Scale (GQS) to measure quality, and Accuracy in Digital-health Information (ANDI) to measure accuracy. Videos were independently assessed by two reviewers per platform; a third reviewer resolved discrepancies. Results: Four hundred and sixty videos were analyzed. Most (69.1%) were educational and authored by medical professionals (38.5%) or lay individuals (48.9%). YouTube had the greatest proportion of medical professional content (56.7%). Instagram scored highest for PEMAT understandability (72.0%) versus YouTube (70.9%), TikTok (61.1%), and Facebook (45.9%) ( Conclusions: Among the platforms studied, Instagram and YouTube content just barely met the PEMAT understandability threshold (≥ 70%). However, none of the platforms on average contained adequately actionable or completely accurate content. YouTube Shorts host the greatest proportion of medical professional content and the highest-quality content relative to other platforms. Level of Evidence: 4.
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.