ArticleTobacco induced diseases2026
The quality and reliability of short videos about passive smoking on Bilibili and TikTok: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Tobacco induced diseases, 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
introductionPassive smoking is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality, yet public awareness of its health risks remains limited. As social media increasingly serves as a source of health information, this study evaluated the quality and reliability of passive smoking-related short videos on two major Chinese platforms, Bilibili and Douyin (TikTok in China).
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, the top 100 videos for each Chinese search term ('passive smoking' and 'secondhand smoking') were retrieved from Bilibili and Douyin on 10 June 2026. After excluding duplicates, irrelevant videos, promotional videos, and videos shorter than 30 seconds, eligible videos were analyzed for basic characteristics and engagement metrics. Two independent reviewers assessed video quality using the Global Quality Scale (GQS), modified DISCERN (mDISCERN), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, and Video Information and Quality Index (VIQI). Comparisons were performed using non-parametric tests, and correlations were examined using Spearman analyses.
resultsA total of 157 videos were included (59 Bilibili, 98 Douyin). Bilibili videos were significantly longer than Douyin videos (median: 130.0 vs 73.0 s, Z= -3.93, p<0.001), whereas Douyin videos received more comments (median: 89.0 vs 27.0, Z= -2.48, p<0.05) and shares (median: 1829.5 vs 72.0, Z= -4.88, p<0.001). Overall, video quality and reliability were moderate. No significant differences were observed between platforms in GQS, mDISCERN, or JAMA. However, Douyin videos achieved significantly higher VIQI scores than Bilibili videos (median: 12.0 vs 11.0, Z= -3.37, p<0.001). Videos produced by science communicators and doctors consistently demonstrated higher quality than those uploaded by lay users. Engagement metrics were not associated with video quality or reliability.
conclusionsPassive smoking-related videos on Douyin and Bilibili provide moderate-quality health information. Videos from science communicators and doctors were of higher quality than those from lay users. Video popularity does not reflect information reliability.
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.