Quality and reliability evaluation of brain glioma-related video content on social short video platforms: a cross-sectional study
This cross-sectional study evaluates glioma-related videos on TikTok and Bilibili, revealing that while TikTok content generally demonstrates higher quality and engagement, educational value across both platforms remains limited with significant gaps in coverage of key clinical topics, underscoring the need for greater involvement by healthcare professionals to improve information reliability and comprehensiveness.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
When a person is diagnosed with a brain glioma, a type of tumor that grows from the supporting cells of the central nervous system, the path forward is often steep and confusing. These growths can cause headaches, seizures, and changes in thinking or movement, and they frequently return even after treatment. Because the condition is complex and the outlook can be uncertain, patients and their families often turn to the internet for answers. In recent years, short video platforms have become a primary way people consume health information. These apps allow users to scroll through thousands of clips in minutes, offering quick explanations, personal stories, and medical advice. However, just because a video is popular or easy to watch does not mean it is accurate or complete. The question facing doctors and researchers is whether these digital spaces are providing reliable guidance for a disease that demands careful understanding, or if they are spreading confusion alongside information.
To answer this, a team of researchers from Chinese medical institutions conducted a systematic review of glioma-related videos on two major Chinese short-video platforms, TikTok and Bilibili. They did not simply watch a few random clips; they treated the search like a scientific survey. On a specific day in late 2025, they used fresh accounts with no search history to find the top 150 videos on each platform using the term for "brain glioma." This method ensured they were seeing what a typical new user would encounter, rather than results skewed by personal algorithms. After removing duplicates, advertisements, and videos that did not actually discuss the disease, they were left with 262 videos to analyze. The team then evaluated every single one of these videos using three different scoring systems designed to measure educational quality, reliability, and transparency. They looked at who made the video, what topics were covered, how long the video lasted, and how many people liked, shared, or commented on it.
The researchers found that while these videos are incredibly popular, their educational value is often limited. The videos generated significant interaction, with hundreds of likes and shares on average, but the content was heavily skewed toward immediate clinical concerns. Most videos focused on how to diagnose the tumor or what treatments are available, covering these topics in about two-thirds to three-quarters of the clips. In contrast, crucial information about the causes of the disease, how often it returns, what the long-term outlook looks like, and the broader statistics of who gets it was largely missing. Only about one in five videos discussed the epidemiology of the disease, and fewer than one in three addressed the risk of recurrence or the prognosis. This imbalance suggests that while viewers might learn how to spot symptoms or choose a surgery, they are left with a fragmented picture of the disease's full reality.
The source of the information mattered greatly. The researchers categorized the uploaders into three groups: specialists like neurosurgeons and oncologists, other healthcare workers such as nurses or radiologists, and individual users including patients and non-medical bloggers. Videos created by specialists consistently scored higher on quality and reliability measures. These experts were more likely to provide balanced information, cite sources, and disclose their credentials. Videos from individual users, while often engaging and emotionally resonant, tended to be less comprehensive and less reliable according to the scoring tools. Interestingly, the platform itself also played a role. Videos on TikTok were generally shorter and received significantly more engagement—more likes, comments, and shares—than those on Bilibili. Despite being shorter, the TikTok videos actually received slightly higher scores for overall quality and transparency than the longer videos on Bilibili, though both platforms had room for improvement.
A key finding of the study was that popularity does not equal accuracy. The researchers looked to see if videos with more likes or longer durations were better quality. They found no strong link between how many people engaged with a video and how reliable the information was. A video could have hundreds of likes and still miss important details about the disease or fail to disclose conflicts of interest. Similarly, longer videos were not necessarily more informative; in fact, the longest videos sometimes had lower scores for transparency. This disconnect suggests that the algorithms driving these platforms prioritize engagement over educational depth. A viewer might scroll past a high-quality, nuanced explanation because it is short or lacks a catchy hook, while a sensationalized or incomplete clip goes viral.
The study concludes that while short videos are a powerful tool for reaching the public, the current landscape of glioma information online is incomplete. The content is too focused on diagnosis and treatment, leaving gaps in understanding the causes, risks of recurrence, and long-term management. The researchers suggest that healthcare professionals need to be more active creators on these platforms to fill these gaps. By participating directly, specialists can ensure that the most viewed content is also the most accurate. They also recommend that platforms and creators pay more attention to the underrepresented topics, such as recurrence and prognosis, to give patients a fuller picture of their condition. Until then, viewers should be cautious, recognizing that a high number of likes or a short duration does not guarantee that the advice they are watching is safe or complete.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.