ArticleMedicine2026
Quality and reliability of anxiety disorder-related short videos on TikTok and Bilibili: 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, short-form videos have demonstrated substantial potential in disseminating health-related information, with TikTok and Bilibili emerging as major platforms for public access to such content. However, to the best of our knowledge, no studies have systematically evaluated the quality and reliability of anxiety disorder-related videos on short-video platforms. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the quality and reliability of anxiety-related short videos on TikTok and Bilibili. A total of 250 anxiety disorder-related videos were analyzed from TikTok and Bilibili. Data on video characteristics, uploader identity, and engagement metrics were collected. The Global Quality Score and modified DISCERN were used to assess quality and reliability. The Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis H test were used for group comparisons, and Spearman rank correlation was applied to assess the relationships between engagement and video quality. The study revealed significant differences between the 2 platforms in video length, quality, reliability, and engagement metrics. Specifically, TikTok videos were shorter (median: 96 seconds, interquartile range [IQR]: 56.00-171.50) and received higher engagement (median likes: 5916, median shares: 2016) compared with Bilibili videos (median: 564 seconds, IQR: 200.00-1004.50, median likes: 611, median shares: 135). Videos uploaded by specialists exhibited higher quality and reliability, with a median Global Quality Score of 3.00 (IQR: 2.00-3.00) and a median modified DISCERN score of 2.00 (IQR: 2.00-3.00), significantly outperforming those uploaded by nonspecialists and individual users (P < .05). Content analysis indicated that most videos focused on symptoms (82.4%) and treatment (53.6%), while crucial topics such as diagnosis (9.2%), prevention (9.6%), and epidemiology (4.8%) were less frequently discussed. Anxiety disorder-related videos on TikTok and Bilibili have moderate quality and reliability. Specialist-uploaded videos are superior in quality. Key topics such as diagnosis and prevention should be better covered, and content moderation and professional involvement should be strengthened.
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.