ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Quality and reliability of information about blood glucose monitoring on TikTok and Bilibili: A cross-sectional analysis.
Article in PLOS digital health, 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
Monitoring blood glucose is essential for diabetes management, and many patients use short-video platforms to learn capillary blood glucose testing. We evaluated whether previously reported concerns about online health information also apply to this narrower procedural task and compared high-ranking videos on TikTok/Douyin and Bilibili. We included 192 videos (TikTok, n = 100; Bilibili, n = 92) and extracted duration, engagement metrics, uploader type, and video category. Two trained nursing reviewers assessed general educational quality and reliability-related characteristics using the Global Quality Score (GQS) and modified DISCERN (mDISCERN). Between-platform comparisons used Mann-Whitney U tests or Pearson's chi-square tests, with standardized Mann-Whitney effect sizes; Spearman correlations examined associations with quality scores. TikTok videos received more likes, platform-specific saving actions, comments, and shares and were shorter than Bilibili videos (all P < 0.001; r = 0.315-0.403). TikTok also had higher proportions of accounts classified as professional uploaders (63.0% vs 35.9%, P < 0.001) and popular-science videos (53.0% vs 32.6%, P = 0.004). However, GQS and mDISCERN scores did not differ significantly between platforms (GQS, P = 0.246; mDISCERN, P = 0.072). Coverage of four prespecified procedural elements was incomplete on both platforms, with guidance on first-drop discard, alcohol drying, and post-puncture pressing time appearing in only a minority of videos. TikTok achieved substantially greater engagement, but popularity did not indicate significantly better educational quality or reliability-related characteristics. Standardized, professionally developed procedural videos may improve online diabetes self-management guidance.
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.