Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Advertisement

Scientific Reports
  • View all journals
  • Search
  • My Account Login
  • Content Explore content
  • About the journal
  • Publish with us
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed
  1. nature
  2. scientific reports
  3. articles
  4. article
Evaluating the information quality and reliability of ovarian cancer educational content on TikTok and Bilibili: a cross-sectional study
Download PDF
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open access
  • Published: 04 February 2026

Evaluating the information quality and reliability of ovarian cancer educational content on TikTok and Bilibili: a cross-sectional study

  • Tao Sun1,2 na1,
  • Muyuan Guo3 na1,
  • Ruping Zhao3,
  • Xiaoyu Tang1,2,
  • Yaling Zhang1,2 &
  • …
  • Yuling Zheng1,2 

Scientific Reports , Article number:  (2026) Cite this article

We are providing an unedited version of this manuscript to give early access to its findings. Before final publication, the manuscript will undergo further editing. Please note there may be errors present which affect the content, and all legal disclaimers apply.

Subjects

  • Cancer
  • Health care
  • Medical research
  • Oncology

Abstract

Ovarian cancer is the gynecological malignancy with the highest mortality rate. In the digital era, short videos have become a primary means for the public to access information about ovarian cancer. We aim to evaluate the quality, reliability and content integrity of ovarian cancer-related videos on TikTok and Bilibili. Searches for the keyword “卵巢癌” (ovarian cancer) on TikTok and Bilibili platforms recorded uploader types, content categories, and user engagement metrics. Videos were evaluated using the Global Quality Scale (GQS), modified DISCERN assessment tool (mDISCERN), and Content Integrity Score (CS). Higher GQS scores and mDISCERN scores indicate higher video quality and reliability, respectively. Statistical analysis employed nonparametric tests and Spearman’s correlation analysis. A total of 213 videos were included and analyzed (TikTok: n = 126; Bilibili: n = 87). Regarding general information, Bilibili videos had a significantly longer median duration than TikTok videos (250 s vs. 97 s, p < 0.001), but user engagement metrics were significantly lower on the Bilibili platform (p < 0.001). Regarding assessment of quality, reliability and content integrity, no statistically significant differences were observed between platforms in GQS, mDISCERN, or CS scores (p > 0.05). Overall quality and reliability were poor (88.73% of videos scored ≤ 3 on GQS, 86.86% scored ≤ 2 on mDISCERN), with insufficient completeness (76.06% scored low on CS). Both specialists and non-specialists physicians achieved significantly higher GQS scores than general users (p < 0.05). Correlation analysis revealed no positive relationship between user engagement metrics and any scores (GQS, mdiscern, and CS). TikTok and Bilibili exhibit significant differences in ovarian cancer-related short video content and user engagement metrics, yet the quality of information on both platforms falls short of ideal standards. Furthermore, user interaction levels did not differ based on assessment scoring (quality, reliability or content integrity). We urge platforms to optimize their health content recommendation mechanisms, encourage healthcare professionals to create high-quality, accessible content, and recommend that clinicians guide patients in critically evaluating information from short videos.

Data availability

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

GQS:

Global Quality Scale

mDISCERN:

Modified DISCERN assessment tool

CS:

Content integrity score

TCM:

Traditional Chinese medicine

M:

Median

IQR:

Interquartile range

n:

Frequency

%:

Percentage

Q1:

Upper quartile

Q3:

Lower quartile

References

  1. Bray, F. et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 74 (3), 229–263. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21834 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Sideris, M., Menon, U. & Manchanda, R. Screening and prevention of ovarian cancer. Med. J. Aust. 220 (5), 264–274. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.52227 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Caruso, G., Weroha, S. J. & Cliby, W. Ovarian cancer: A review. JAMA 334(14), 1278–1291. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2025.9495 (2025).

  4. Puckett, M. C. et al. Ovarian cancer knowledge in women and providers following education with inside knowledge campaign materials. J. Cancer Educ. 33 (6), 1285–1293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-017-1245-0 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Momenimovahed, Z., Tiznobaik, A., Taheri, S. & Salehiniya, H. Ovarian cancer in the world: Epidemiology and risk factors. Int. J. Womens Health. 11, 287–299. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S197604 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chen, J. & Wang, Y. Social media use for health purposes: Systematic review. J. Med. Internet Res. 23 (5), e17917. https://doi.org/10.2196/17917 (2021). Published 2021 May 12.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Patel, R., Chang, T., Greysen, S. R. & Chopra, V. Social media use in chronic disease: A systematic review and novel taxonomy. Am. J. Med. 128 (12), 1335–1350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2015.06.015 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ruco, A. et al. Social media and mobile health technology for cancer screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol. BMJ Open. 10 (2), e035411. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035411 (2020). Published 2020 Feb 5.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Suarez-Lledo, V. & Alvarez-Galvez, J. Prevalence of health misinformation on social media: Systematic review. J. Med. Internet Res. 23 (1), e17187. https://doi.org/10.2196/17187 (2021). Published 2021 Jan 20.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kong, W., Song, S., Zhao, Y. C., Zhu, Q. & Sha, L. TikTok as a health information source: Assessment of the quality of information in diabetes-related videos. J. Med. Internet Res. 23(9), e30409. https://doi.org/10.2196/30409 (2021).

  11. Zheng, S. et al. Quality and reliability of liver cancer-related short Chinese videos on TikTok and Bilibili: Cross-sectional content analysis study. J. Med. Internet Res. 25, e47210. https://doi.org/10.2196/47210 (2023).

  12. Szmuda, T. et al. YouTube as a source of patient information for coronavirus disease (COVID-19): A content-quality and audience engagement analysis. Rev. Med. Virol. 30 (5), e2132. https://doi.org/10.1002/rmv.2132 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Yuan, Y. & Wang, Q. Characteristics, hotspots, and prospects of short video research: A review of papers published in China from 2012 to 2022. Heliyon 10 (3), e24885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24885 (2024). Published 2024 Jan 24.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Wang, Y. et al. Burden of ovarian cancer in China from 1990 to 2030: A systematic analysis and comparison with the global level. Front. Public. Health. 11, 1136596. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1136596 (2023). Published 2023 Feb 13.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Zhu, W. et al. Information quality of videos related to esophageal cancer on Tiktok, Kwai, and Bilibili: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 25(1), 2245. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-23475-9 (2025).

  16. Wang, X. & Cheng, Z. Cross-sectional studies: Strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations. Chest 158 (1S), S65–S71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2020.03.012 (2020).

  17. Lei, Y., Liao, F., Li, X. & Zhu, Y. Quality and reliability evaluation of pancreatic cancer-related video content on social short video platforms: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 25 (1), 1919. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-23130-3 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Wang, M. et al. Bilibili, TikTok, and YouTube as sources of information on gastric cancer: assessment and analysis of the content and quality. BMC Public. Health. 24 (1), 57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-17323-x (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Liu, Z. et al. YouTube/ Bilibili/ TikTok videos as sources of medical information on laryngeal carcinoma: cross-sectional content analysis study. BMC Public Health 24(1), 1594. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19077-6 (2024).

  20. Liu, H. et al. Assessment of the reliability and quality of breast cancer related videos on TikTok and Bilibili: Cross-sectional study in China. Front. Public Health 11, 1296386. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1296386 (2024).

  21. Zhang, S. et al. Internet videos and colorectal cancer in Mainland China: A content analysis. BMC Med. Inf. Decis. Mak. 18 (1), 129. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-018-0711-x (2018). Published 2018 Dec 4.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hu, R. H. et al. Quality and accuracy of gastric cancer related videos in social media videos platforms. BMC Public. Health. 22 (1), 2025. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-14417-w (2022). Published 2022 Nov 5.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Guan, J. L. et al. Videos in short-video sharing platforms as sources of information on colorectal polyps: Cross-sectional content analysis study. J. Med. Internet Res. 26, e51655. https://doi.org/10.2196/51655 (2024). Published 2024 Oct 29.

    Google Scholar 

  24. He, Z. et al. The reliability and quality of short videos as a source of dietary guidance for inflammatory bowel disease: Cross-sectional study. J. Med. Internet Res. 25, e41518. https://doi.org/10.2196/41518 (2023). Published 2023 Feb 9.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Wang, X. & Shang, Q. How do social and parasocial relationships on TikTok impact the well-being of university students? The roles of algorithm awareness and compulsive use. Acta Psychol. (Amst). 248, 104369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104369 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Costello, N. et al. Algorithms, addiction, and adolescent mental health: An interdisciplinary study to inform state-level policy action to protect youth from the dangers of social media. Am. J. Law Med. 49 (2–3), 135–172. https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2023.25 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Rosenberg, H., Hollander, Y., Gordon, C. B., Rotem, R. & Horev, A. Evaluating the quality of TikTok videos on vitiligo: A cross-sectional study. Int. J. Dermatol. 23. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijd.17962 (2025).

  28. Zhou, Y. et al. Content accuracy and reliability of pulmonary nodule information on social media platforms: A cross-platform study of YouTube, Bilibili, and TikTok. Front. Med. (Lausanne). 12, 1613526 (2025). Published 2025 Sep 22.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Fu, R. L. Knowledge crowdsourcing of interactive videos: A research on the knowledge community of the Bilibili website. J. Southwest. Univ. (Social Sci. Edition). 47 (6), 190–199260 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Zhang, R. et al. Analyzing dissemination, quality, and reliability of Chinese brain tumor-related short videos on TikTok and Bilibili: A cross-sectional study. Front. Neurol. 15, 1404038. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2024.1404038 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Wang, L., Shu, X., Huang, J., Yan, W. & Zhao, D. Quality and reliability of adolescent sexuality education on Chinese video platforms: Sentiment-topic analysis and cross-sectional study. JMIR Form. Res. 9, e77100. https://doi.org/10.2196/77100 (2025). Published 2025 Sep 5.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Jang, C. W., Kim, M., Kang, S. W. & Cho, H. E. Reliability, quality, and educational suitability of TikTok videos as a source of information about scoliosis exercises: A cross-sectional study. Healthcare (Basel) 10 (9), 1622. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10091622 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Bai, G. et al. Quality assessment of YouTube videos as an information source for testicular torsion. Front. Public. Health. 10, 905609. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.905609 (2022). Published 2022 May 18.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Lamb, K. L., Barker, M. E. & Lynn, A. A content analysis of online videos containing dietary recommendations for gout and their alignment with evidence-based dietary guidelines. Public. Health Nutr. 26 (10), 2014–2025. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136898002300160X (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Mueller, S. M. et al. Fiction, falsehoods, and few facts: Cross-sectional study on the content-related quality of atopic eczema-related videos on YouTube. J. Med. Internet Res. 22 (4), e15599. https://doi.org/10.2196/15599 (2020). Published 2020 Apr 24.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Johnson, S. B. et al. Cancer misinformation and harmful information on Facebook and other social media: A brief report. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 114 (7), 1036–1039. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djab141 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Briones, R. Harnessing the web: How E-Health and E-Health literacy impact young adults’ perceptions of online health information. Med. 2 0. 4 (2), e5. https://doi.org/10.2196/med20.4327 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Chen, Y. et al. The quality and reliability of short videos about thyroid nodules on Bilibili and Tiktok: Cross-sectional study. Digit. Health. 10, 20552076241288831. https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076241288831 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Song, S. et al. Short-video apps as a health information source for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Information quality assessment of TikTok videos. J. Med. Internet Res. 23 (12), e28318. https://doi.org/10.2196/28318 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Yada, N. & Head, M. Attitudes toward health care virtual communities of practice: Survey among health care workers. J. Med. Internet Res. 21 (12), e15176. https://doi.org/10.2196/15176 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Yurdaisik, I. Analysis of the most viewed first 50 videos on YouTube about breast cancer. Biomed. Res. Int. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2750148 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Enver, N. et al. YouTube™ as an information source for larynx cancer: A systematic review of video content. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 277 (7), 2061–2069. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-05906-y (2020).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The 4th National Chinese Medicine Expert Inheritance Studio Project (NO.[2022]75); Collaborative Innovation Center of Prevention and Treatment of Major Diseases by Chinese and Western Medicine, Henan Province (NO.[2023]413); Henan Province Natural Science Foundation Project (NO.242300420435); Henan Traditional Chinese Medicine Research Special Project (NO.2023ZY2018).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Tao Sun and Muyuan Guo contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Henan University of Chinese Medicine, Zhengzhou, China

    Tao Sun, Xiaoyu Tang, Yaling Zhang & Yuling Zheng

  2. Collaborative Innovation Center of Prevention and Treatment of Major Diseases by Chinese and Western Medicine, Zhengzhou, Henan, China

    Tao Sun, Xiaoyu Tang, Yaling Zhang & Yuling Zheng

  3. Henan University of Chinese Medicine, Zhengzhou, China

    Muyuan Guo & Ruping Zhao

Authors
  1. Tao Sun
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Muyuan Guo
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ruping Zhao
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xiaoyu Tang
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yaling Zhang
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yuling Zheng
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

T.S. and M.G. designed this study and contributed to manuscript writing. Data collection was performed by M.G., R.Z., and X.T. T.S. and R.Z. conducted data analysis and visualization. Ya.Z. and Yu.Z. supervised the study implementation and performed the final review of the manuscript. All authors participated in editing and approved the final version submitted for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuling Zheng.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This study utilized exclusively publicly available video content from TikTok and Bilibili. It did not involve the collection or analysis of clinical data, human specimens, animal experiments, or personal private information. Consequently, ethical review and approval were not required for this research.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sun, T., Guo, M., Zhao, R. et al. Evaluating the information quality and reliability of ovarian cancer educational content on TikTok and Bilibili: a cross-sectional study. Sci Rep (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-37077-x

Download citation

  • Received: 08 November 2025

  • Accepted: 19 January 2026

  • Published: 04 February 2026

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-37077-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Keywords

  • Ovarian cancer
  • Short video
  • Information quality
  • Reliability
  • mDISCERN
  • TikTok
  • Bilibili
Download PDF

Advertisement

Explore content

  • Research articles
  • News & Comment
  • Collections
  • Subjects
  • Follow us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Twitter
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed

About the journal

  • About Scientific Reports
  • Contact
  • Journal policies
  • Guide to referees
  • Calls for Papers
  • Editor's Choice
  • Journal highlights
  • Open Access Fees and Funding

Publish with us

  • For authors
  • Language editing services
  • Open access funding
  • Submit manuscript

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

  • Explore articles by subject
  • Find a job
  • Guide to authors
  • Editorial policies

Scientific Reports (Sci Rep)

ISSN 2045-2322 (online)

nature.com sitemap

About Nature Portfolio

  • About us
  • Press releases
  • Press office
  • Contact us

Discover content

  • Journals A-Z
  • Articles by subject
  • protocols.io
  • Nature Index

Publishing policies

  • Nature portfolio policies
  • Open access

Author & Researcher services

  • Reprints & permissions
  • Research data
  • Language editing
  • Scientific editing
  • Nature Masterclasses
  • Research Solutions

Libraries & institutions

  • Librarian service & tools
  • Librarian portal
  • Open research
  • Recommend to library

Advertising & partnerships

  • Advertising
  • Partnerships & Services
  • Media kits
  • Branded content

Professional development

  • Nature Awards
  • Nature Careers
  • Nature Conferences

Regional websites

  • Nature Africa
  • Nature China
  • Nature India
  • Nature Japan
  • Nature Middle East
  • Privacy Policy
  • Use of cookies
  • Legal notice
  • Accessibility statement
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Your US state privacy rights
Springer Nature

© 2026 Springer Nature Limited

Nature Briefing: Cancer

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Cancer newsletter — what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Cancer