Back to all available

A comparative quality evaluation of urticaria science popularization videos across short-video platforms: TikTok, Xiaohongshu and Bilibili

dermatology
public-health
statistics

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to compare the information quality and interactivity of urticaria-related videos across Bilibili, TikTok, and Xiaohongshu, and to assess how platform characteristics relate to content quality.

Method: A total of 281 videos were analyzed (Bilibili 94, TikTok 92, Xiaohongshu 95) using the mDISCERN, GQS, JAMA, and a composite SUM score. Engagement metrics (likes, favorites, comments, shares) and the author's professional status were recorded. Group comparisons were performed using ANOVA or the Kruskal–Wallis test; relationships among metrics were assessed using Spearman's correlation.

Result: Significant inter-platform differences were found for most measures. SUM: Bilibili 10.65±1.95, TikTok 10.61±1.95, Xiaohongshu 8.92±1.62 (P<0.001). mDISCERN: Bilibili 3.84±1.07, TikTok 3.37±0.86, Xiaohongshu 3.21±0.92 (P<0.001). GQS: TikTok 3.95±0.87, Bilibili 3.70±0.88, Xiaohongshu 2.62±0.66 (P<0.001). JAMA showed no significant difference (P=0.142). TikTok demonstrated the highest engagement (median likes 2355.5, favorites 1518.5, comments 254, shares 1291; all P<0.001). Interaction metrics were highly intercorrelated (r=0.91--0.95) but only weakly correlated with quality scores. mDISCERN, GQS, and SUM correlated strongly with each other (r ~0.73--0.74); JAMA correlated weakly with other dimensions. The proportion of professional authors was: TikTok 88%, Bilibili 79%, Xiaohongshu 76%.

Conclusion: Bilibili slightly outperformed in evidence-based quality (SUM, mDISCERN); TikTok offered higher perceived quality (GQS) and much greater engagement; Xiaohongshu lagged overall. High engagement was not a reliable indicator of higher information quality. We recommend integrating Bilibili's evidence presentation with TikTok's accessibility to improve video quality and verifiability, and suggest conducting longitudinal studies to test causal links between engagement and quality.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].