ArticleOxford open digital health2026
TikTok as a source of information for migraine: a content quality analysis.
Article in Oxford open 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Migraine is one of the most common neurological conditions affecting people worldwide. Migraine is the second leading cause of the global burden of neurological diseases. Studies have found the information on TikTok on migraine to be inaccurate, yet it has been a source of health information among the public. The objective of the study was to describe the TikTok videos discussing migraine, to evaluate its content in terms of reliability, quality, and understandability, and investigate the factors of these videos. A search was conducted using the keyword '#migraine' and the top videos were assessed by two independent raters. Video parameters such as type of uploader, views, likes, comments, shares, and duration were also collected. The evaluated videos had low quality and reliability on the Global Quality Scale (GQS) and the modified DISCERN tool, with low understandability and actionability. Higher scores overall in Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) showed a positive correlation with higher scores on the GQS. Video length (in seconds) had a positive correlation with GQS and PEMAT scores [length with GQS
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.