ArticleMedicine2026
Quality assessment of lupus nephritis health information on China's mainstream short-form video platforms: 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
Abstract
Lupus nephritis (LN) is an important cause of end-stage renal disease. Recently, more and more patients have been accessing LN-related health information through TikTok and Bilibili, but the quality of the content is uneven. This cross-sectional study aims to systematically evaluate the content quality of LN-related short videos on these 2 major platforms. On December 13, 2025, we searched for "LN" in Chinese on TikTok and Bilibili and obtained the top 100 results from each platform. After screening, 159 videos were analyzed. The Global Quality Score (GQS) and modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) scales were used for multidimensional quality evaluation, and the correlation between video characteristics and interaction metrics was analyzed. The results showed that Bilibili's videos had significantly longer durations (median: 486 seconds vs TikTok's 82.5 seconds) and higher GQS scores (median: 3.00 vs 2.00, P <.05). After adjusting for confounding factors, there was no significant difference in GQS (odds ratio = 1.40, 95% confidence interval: 0.43-4.64) or mDISCERN (odds ratio = 0.78, 95% confidence interval: 0.28-2.16) between TikTok and Bilibili. TikTok videos were more interactive, receiving more likes, shares, and comments. The content on both platforms mainly focused on "treatment" and "symptoms" while rarely covering topics such as "prevention" and "epidemiology." A positive correlation was found between content quality and the professional background of the creator: the median GQS and mDISCERN scores for videos released by professional clinicians were 3.00, whereas those for individual users were only 1.00. In addition, audience interaction was negatively correlated with content quality. In summary, videos on both Bilibili and TikTok demonstrated modest overall quality.
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.