Evaluating the Reliability and Quality of Bariatric Surgery Educational Content on TikTok and Bilibili: a Cross-Sectional Content Analysis

The three platforms show distinct differences in how cervical cancer-related health information is disseminated. TikTok demonstrates superior dissemination and engagement performance, whereas YouTube provides higher content quality and credibility. These findings underscore the importance of leveraging each platform's strengths to promote evidence-based health communication. 

pdf/evaluating-the-quality-and-reliability-of-cervical-cancer-dua52uu9hpqr.pdf

Evaluating the quality and reliability of cervical cancer related videos on YouTube, Bilibili, and Tiktok: a cross-sectional analysis

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a significant clinical issue that is commonly discussed on social media platforms. Despite the widespread availability of health information videos, the quality and comprehensiveness of these videos vary greatly, posing potential risks to public health. This study evaluates the content and quality of GI bleeding-related videos on TikTok, Bilibili, and YouTube. A total of 300 GI bleeding-related videos were collected and analyzed from TikTok, Bilibili, and YouTube. The videos were categorized based on the uploader’s background (health professionals vs. non-health professionals). Key metrics such as likes, comments, video duration, and quality scores (GQS, JAMA, and modified DISCERN) were compared. Simultaneously, the content of the videos was analyzed across six aspects: definition, symptoms, risk factors, tests, treatment, and outcomes. A total of 300 GI bleeding-related videos were analyzed, with 196 (65.3%) uploaded by health professionals and 104 (34.7%) by non-health professionals. TikTok videos received significantly more likes and comments but were shorter in duration compared to those on Bilibili and YouTube (p < 0.05). The overall quality and reliability of the videos were relatively low, with median DISCERN and GQS scores of 2 (IQR: 2–3) and 3 (IQR: 2–3), respectively. Videos from health professionals exhibited higher reliability and quality, with median DISCERN scores of 3 (IQR: 3–4) and GQS scores of 3 (IQR: 3–4). The overall quality and comprehensiveness of GI bleeding-related videos on social media platforms are unsatisfactory, with many low-quality videos still prevalent. Although videos from health professionals score higher in quality and reliability, their content comprehensiveness is not significantly better than those from non-health professionals. Efforts should be intensified to improve the content and quality of GI bleeding videos, raise public awareness, and promote patient self-management.

Assessing the content and quality of GI bleeding information on Bilibili, TikTok, and YouTube: a cross-sectional study

Abstract Background Although the current guidelines recommend endoscopic combination therapy, endoscopic epinephrine injection (EI) monotherapy is still a simple, common and effective modality for treating peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB). However, the rebleeding risk after EI monotherapy is still high, and identifying rebleeding patients after EI monotherapy is unclear, which is highly important in clinical practice. This study aimed to identify risk factors and constructed a predictive nomogram related to rebleeding after EI monotherapy. Methods We consecutively and retrospectively analyzed 360 PUB patients who underwent EI monotherapy between March 2014 and July 2021 in our center. Then we identified independent risk factors associated with rebleeding after initial endoscopic EI monotherapy by multivariate logistic regression. A predictive nomogram was developed and validated based on the above predictors. Results Among all PUB patients enrolled, 51 (14.2%) had recurrent hemorrhage within 30 days after endoscopic EI monotherapy. After multivariate logistic regression, shock [odds ratio (OR) = 12.691, 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.129–31.399, p &lt; 0.001], Rockall score (OR = 1.877, 95% CI 1.250–2.820, p = 0.002), tachycardia (heart rate &gt; 100 beats/min) (OR = 2.610, 95% CI 1.098–6.203, p = 0.030), prolonged prothrombin time (PT &gt; 13 s) (OR = 2.387, 95% CI 1.019–5.588, p = 0.045) and gastric ulcer (OR = 2.258, 95% CI 1.003–5.084, p = 0.049) were associated with an increased risk of rebleeding after an initial EI monotherapy treatment. A nomogram incorporating these independent high-risk factors showed good discrimination, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.876 (95% CI 0.817–0.934) (p &lt; 0.001). Conclusions We developed a predictive nomogram of rebleeding after EI monotherapy, which had excellent prediction accuracy. This predictive nomogram can be conveniently used to identify low-risk rebleeding patients after EI monotherapy, allowing for decision-making in a clinical setting. 

/pdf/nomogram-for-predicting-rebleeding-after-initial-endoscopic-ucg55ade.pdf

Nomogram for predicting rebleeding after initial endoscopic epinephrine injection monotherapy hemostasis in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding: a retrospective cohort study

Whether combination therapy has higher hemostatic efficacy than epinephrine injection monotherapy in different Forrest classifications is not clear. This study aimed to compare hemostatic efficacy between epinephrine injection monotherapy (MT) and combination therapy (CT) based on different Forrest classifications.We retrospectively analyzed peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) patients who underwent endoscopic epinephrine injections or epinephrine injections combined with a second therapy between March 2014 and June 2022 in our center, and the patients were divided into MT group or CT group. Subsequently, a propensity score matching analysis (PSM) was performed and rebleeding rates were calculated according to Forrest classifications via a stratified analysis.Overall, 605 patients who met the inclusion criteria were included, and after PSM, 173 patients in each of the CT and MT groups were included. For PUB patients with nonbleeding visible vessels (FIIa), the rebleeding rates by Days 3, 7, 14, and 30 after PSM were 8.8%, 17.5%, 19.3%, and 19.3% in the MT group, respectively, and rates were 0%, 4.1%, 5.5%, and 5.5% in the CT group, respectively, with significant differences observed between the two groups by Days 3, 7, 14, and 30 (P = 0.015, P = 0.011, P = 0.014, and P = 0.014, respectively). However, for PUB patients with oozing bleeding (FIb), the rebleeding rates by Days 3, 7, 14, and 30 after PSM were 14.9%, 16.2%, 17.6%, and 17.6% in the MT group, respectively, and rates were 13.2%, 14.7%, 14.7%, and 16.2% in the CT group, respectively, with no significant differences observed between the two groups by Days 3, 7, 14, and 30 (P = 0.78, P = 0.804, P = 0.644 and P = 0.825).Combined therapy has higher hemostatic efficacy than epinephrine injection monotherapy for PUB patients with visible blood vessel (FIIa) ulcers. However, epinephrine injection monotherapy is equally as effective as combined therapy for PUB patients with oozing blood (FIb) ulcers. 

/pdf/epinephrine-injection-monotherapy-shows-similar-hemostatic-23bxo7i2.pdf

Epinephrine injection monotherapy shows similar hemostatic efficacy to epinephrine injection combined therapy in high-risk patients (Forrest Ib) with bleeding ulcers.

Medical therapy has similar hemostatic efficacy with endoscopic treatment for PUB patients with adherent clot (FIIb ulcers).

Non-epinephrine monotherapy matches combination therapy in high-risk PUB patients

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Jingsong Wang

Author Tools

Chat about Author