Objective: Short-video platforms have become major sources of totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) information for the public. However, the quality and reliability of such content remain uncertain. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study. Using the Chinese keyword “Totally Implantable Venous Access Port” (输液港), we screened top-ranked videos on Douyin (TikTok China) and Bilibili. Two trained raters assessed overall quality using the Global Quality Score (GQS), reliability using a modified DISCERN (mDIS) instrument, source transparency using the JAMA benchmark criteria, and a synthesized SUM score. Uploaders were classified as Professionals and Non-Professionals. Independent t-tests and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for group comparisons, and Spearman’s test was utilized for correlation analysis. Results: A total of 178 videos were included (Bilibili n = 86, 48.31%; Douyin n = 92, 51.69%). Between the two platforms, significant differences were observed in JAMA score, Likes, Comments, Favorites, and Duration (all p < 0.05), whereas SUM score (p = 0.887) and GQS score (p = 0.081) showed no statistical significance. When stratified by author type, the majority of the videos (n = 120, 67.42%) were uploaded by Professionals, whereas 58 (32.58%) were generated by Non-Professionals. Professional videos scored significantly higher in SUM, JAMA, and GQS scores (p < 0.001). However, Non-Professional videos received significantly more Likes and Favorites (p < 0.001). Comments and Duration showed no significant differences between author types (p > 0.05). Correlation analysis revealed that engagement metrics (Likes and Comments) had no significant correlation with quality scores (SUM, GQS, JAMA, mDIS; p > 0.05), while Favorites and Duration showed weak to moderate positive correlations with quality. Conclusion: The quality of TIVAP short videos is highly dependent on the author’s professional background. While Professionals provide significantly higher quality and reliability, Non-Professional videos attract substantially more user engagement (Likes and Favorites). Popularity metrics are not valid proxies for health information quality, highlighting the urgent need to promote digital health literacy and optimize platform recommendation algorithms.
References
[1]
Huang, X., Li, X., Deng, J., Chen, J. and Qian, L. (2025) Clinical Applications and Research Progress of Totally Implantable Venous Access Ports: A Literature Review. FrontiersinOncology, 14, Article ID: 1519728. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2024.1519728
[2]
D’Souza, P.C., Kumar, S., Kakaria, A., Al-Sukaiti, R., Al-Baimani, K., Hamid, R.S., et al. (2021) Complications and Management of Totally Implantable Central Venous Access Ports in Cancer Patients at a University Hospital in Oman. SultanQaboosUniversityMedicalJournal, 21, e103-109. https://doi.org/10.18295/squmj.2021.21.01.014
[3]
Ma, L., Liu, Y., Wang, J., Chang, Y., Yu, L. and Geng, C. (2016) Totally Implantable Venous Access Port Systems and Associated Complications: A Single-Institution Retrospective Analysis of 2,996 Breast Cancer Patients. MolecularandClinicalOncology, 4, 456-460. https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2016.726
[4]
Narducci, F., Jean-Laurent, M., Boulanger, L., El Bédoui, S., Mallet, Y., Houpeau, J.L., et al. (2011) Totally Implantable Venous Access Port Systems and Risk Factors for Complications: A One-Year Prospective Study in a Cancer Centre. EuropeanJournalofSurgicalOncology(EJSO), 37, 913-918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2011.06.016
[5]
Moorhead, S.A., Hazlett, D.E., Harrison, L., Carroll, J.K., Irwin, A. and Hoving, C. (2013) A New Dimension of Health Care: Systematic Review of the Uses, Benefits, and Limitations of Social Media for Health Communication. JournalofMedicalInternetResearch, 15, e85. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1933
[6]
Comp, G., Dyer, S. and Gottlieb, M. (2020) Is TikTok the Next Social Media Frontier for Medicine? AEMEducationandTraining, 5, No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1002/aet2.10532
[7]
Norman, C.D. and Skinner, H.A. (2006) Ehealth Literacy: Essential Skills for Consumer Health in a Networked World. JournalofMedicalInternetResearch, 8, e9. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.8.2.e9
[8]
Kirkpatrick, C.E. and Lawrie, L.L. (2024) Tiktok as a Source of Health Information and Misinformation for Young Women in the United States: Survey Study. JMIR Infodemiology, 4, e54663. https://doi.org/10.2196/54663
[9]
Suarez-Lledo, V. and Alvarez-Galvez, J. (2021) Prevalence of Health Misinformation on Social Media: Systematic Review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23, e17187. https://doi.org/10.2196/17187
[10]
Chou, W.S., Oh, A. and Klein, W.M.P. (2018) Addressing Health-Related Misinformation on Social Media. JAMA, 320, 2417-2418. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.16865
[11]
Shen, N., Xu, C., Yang, Y. and Zhang, D. (2026) Evaluating the Quality and Reliability of Kawasaki Disease-Related Content on TikTok and Bilibili: A Cross-Sectional Study. FrontiersinPublicHealth, 13, Article ID: 1664542. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1664542
[12]
Zheng, S., Tong, X., Wan, D., Hu, C., Hu, Q. and Ke, Q. (2023) Quality and Reliability of Liver Cancer-Related Short Chinese Videos on Tiktok and Bilibili: Cross-Sectional Content Analysis Study. JournalofMedicalInternetResearch, 25, e47210. https://doi.org/10.2196/47210
[13]
Sun, F., Zheng, S. and Wu, J. (2023) Quality of Information in Gallstone Disease Videos on TikTok: Cross-Sectional Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25, e39162. https://doi.org/10.2196/39162
[14]
Bernard, A., Langille, M., Hughes, S., Rose, C., Leddin, D. and Veldhuyzen van Zanten, S. (2007) A Systematic Review of Patient Inflammatory Bowel Disease Information Resources on the World Wide Web. TheAmericanJournalofGastroenterology, 102, 2070-2077. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01325.x
[15]
Charnock, D., Shepperd, S., Needham, G. and Gann, R. (1999) Discern: An Instrument for Judging the Quality of Written Consumer Health Information on Treatment Choices. JournalofEpidemiologyandCommunityHealth, 53, 105-111. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.53.2.105
[16]
Silberg, W.M. (1997) Assessing, Controlling, and Assuring the Quality of Medical Information on the Internet: Caveant Lector et Viewor-Let the Reader and Viewer Beware. JAMA, 277, 1244-1245. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1997.03540390074039
[17]
Wang, Y., McKee, M., Torbica, A. and Stuckler, D. (2019) Systematic Literature Review on the Spread of Health-Related Misinformation on Social Media. SocialScience&Medicine, 240, Article 112552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112552
[18]
Merchant, R.M., South, E.C. and Lurie, N. (2021) Public Health Messaging in an Era of Social Media. JAMA, 325, 223-224. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.24514
[19]
Jenkins, E.L., Ilicic, J., Barklamb, A.M. and McCaffrey, T.A. (2020) Assessing the Credibility and Authenticity of Social Media Content for Applications in Health Communication: Scoping Review. JournalofMedicalInternetResearch, 22, e17296. https://doi.org/10.2196/17296
[20]
van Kessel, R., Wong, B.L.H., Clemens, T. and Brand, H. (2022) Digital Health Literacy as a Super Determinant of Health: More than Simply the Sum of Its Parts. InternetInterventions, 27, Article 100500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2022.100500
[21]
Waszak, P.M., Kasprzycka-Waszak, W. and Kubanek, A. (2018) The Spread of Medical Fake News in Social Media—The Pilot Quantitative Study. HealthPolicyandTechnology, 7, 115-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2018.03.002
[22]
Swire-Thompson, B. and Lazer, D. (2020) Public Health and Online Misinformation: Challenges and Recommendations. AnnualReviewofPublicHealth, 41, 433-451. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094127
[23]
Tangcharoensathien, V., Calleja, N., Nguyen, T., Purnat, T., D’Agostino, M., Garcia-Saiso, S., et al. (2020) Framework for Managing the COVID-19 Infodemic: Methods and Results of an Online, Crowdsourced WHO Technical Consultation. JournalofMedicalInternetResearch, 22, e19659. https://doi.org/10.2196/19659
