ArticleMedicine2026
Quality and content evaluation of anal fistula information 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Short-video platforms are widely used for medical information, but the quality of anal fistula content remains uncertain. We evaluated anal fistula-related videos on TikTok and Bilibili and compared platforms and uploader categories. The top 200 videos under each platform's default comprehensive ranking were screened. Eligible videos were assessed using the Global Quality Score (GQS), modified DISCERN (mDISCERN), Journal of the American Medical Association benchmark criteria (JAMA), and 7-indicator completeness score (7-ICS). Platform and uploader differences were evaluated using nonparametric tests. Spearman correlations examined relationships between engagement and quality, and multivariable ordinal logistic regression identified factors associated with higher scores. Of 400 screened videos, 333 were included (TikTok, 167; Bilibili, 166). Median GQS, mDISCERN, JAMA, and 7-ICS scores were each 2.00. Treatment (71.4%) and clinical manifestations (63.9%) were the most frequently covered domains, whereas epidemiology (7.2%) and prevention (12.6%) were least covered. TikTok videos were shorter and received greater engagement than Bilibili videos (all P < .001). Bilibili had higher unadjusted 7-ICS scores and JAMA score distributions, while GQS and mDISCERN did not differ. After adjustment, TikTok was associated with higher GQS (OR, 2.26; 95% CI: 1.27-4.02) and lower 7-ICS (OR, 0.26; 95% CI: 0.13-0.50), but not with JAMA or mDISCERN. Specialist-physician uploader status and longer video duration were associated with higher scores for all 4 outcomes. Engagement metrics were strongly intercorrelated but were generally unrelated to quality measures. Anal fistula-related videos on both platforms were generally incomplete and of suboptimal quality. Platform differences were mixed rather than uniformly favoring TikTok or Bilibili. Specialist-physician authorship and longer duration were consistently associated with better scores. These cross-sectional findings represent associations, not causal effects.
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.