ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
The quality and reliability of short videos about cervical spondylosis on TikTok and Redbook: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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
objectiveTo systematically evaluate the quality, reliability, understandability, and actionability of short videos related to cervical spondylosis on TikTok and Redbook, and to compare differences across platforms, uploader sources, and treatment modalities.
methodsOn February 1, 2026, the top 100 videos ranked by comprehensive relevance were retrieved from both platforms using the Chinese keyword "cervical spondylosis". Two researchers independently screened videos and assessed video quality and reliability using the Global Quality Scale (GQS) and the modified DISCERN tool (mDISCERN), while the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) was employed to evaluate understandability (PEMAT-U) and actionability (PEMAT-A). Basic video characteristics and engagement metrics were recorded, and stratified analyses were performed based on uploader professional background and video content.
resultsA total of 143 videos were included (80 from TikTok, 63 from Redbook). Overall, video quality was moderate, with median GQS and mDISCERN scores of 3.00, and median PEMAT-U and PEMAT-A scores of 75.00% and 67.00%, respectively. TikTok videos demonstrated significantly higher engagement metrics, GQS, and mDISCERN scores compared to Redbook videos (all P < 0.05). Orthopedic professionals were the primary contributors (59.4%), and videos uploaded by orthopedic and rehabilitation professionals achieved significantly higher GQS and PEMAT-U scores than those from other-field professionals (both P < 0.05). Rehabilitation intervention videos (accounting for 80.3%) scored significantly higher across all quality assessment domains compared to surgical intervention videos (all P < 0.05). Correlation analysis revealed only weak to moderate associations between engagement metrics and quality scores (ρ = 0.22-0.41), indicating that video popularity does not reflect content quality.
conclusionsThe overall quality of cervical spondylosis-related short videos on TikTok and Redbook is moderate, with significant variations across platforms and uploader sources. Content from professional sources and rehabilitation interventions demonstrates superior quality, but video popularity does not equate to quality. The public should not rely solely on engagement metrics to judge video reliability. There is an urgent need to encourage more professional medical involvement in health science popularization and to strengthen platform content review mechanisms.
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.