Evaluating the quality and value of the top 100 most liked TikTok Videos categorized with #aclrehab

Christian D. Kim, Andrew S. Lee, Neha Boinpally, Zachery M. Davidson, Kathleen S. Beebe
{"title":"Evaluating the quality and value of the top 100 most liked TikTok Videos categorized with #aclrehab","authors":"Christian D. Kim,&nbsp;Andrew S. Lee,&nbsp;Neha Boinpally,&nbsp;Zachery M. Davidson,&nbsp;Kathleen S. Beebe","doi":"10.1016/j.jorep.2024.100450","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>TikTok specializes in short videos and has become a common source of information for many of its users. To date, only three other studies have characterized the quality and value of popular TikTok content related to orthopedics. This study evaluated the quality and value of the top 100 most liked TikTok videos categorized with #aclrehab.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A comprehensive search was conducted in TikTok using the search parameter #aclrehab. The top 100 most-liked videos were analyzed by four independent reviewers. Video characteristics and viewer interaction parameters were analyzed as well. Videos were categorized first by source and then further classified as useful, misleading/irrelevant, or personal experience. Useful videos were assessed for reliability and comprehensiveness using a modified 5-point DISCERN scale. Personal experience videos were further categorized into positive, negative, or neutral valence. The overall quality of all videos were assessed, regardless of classification, according to the 5-point Global Quality Scale (GQS).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of the 100 videos retrieved, 21 videos were classified as useful, 68 as personal experience, and 11 as misleading/irrelevant. The GQS average for useful videos was 3.36 while the GQS averages for personal experience and irrelevant/misleading videos were 1.43 and 1.18 respectively. While significant differences in GQS scores were observed, the overall reliability and comprehensiveness of useful videos scored poorly. For videos categorized as useful, the DISCERN score average was 2.54. For the videos classified as personal experiences, the number of positive, negative, and neutral valenced videos were 14, 20, and 34 respectively.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>This study found that the most popular TikTok videos categorized with #aclrehab are mostly personal experiences with little informational value or quality. The study also concluded that of the 21 videos classified as useful, the information regarding ACL rehabilitation is of slightly below moderate quality and reliability.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100818,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic Reports","volume":"4 3","pages":"Article 100450"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2773157X24001450/pdfft?md5=82bbd9e6fd1b067642598c4d005b6d25&pid=1-s2.0-S2773157X24001450-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2773157X24001450","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

TikTok specializes in short videos and has become a common source of information for many of its users. To date, only three other studies have characterized the quality and value of popular TikTok content related to orthopedics. This study evaluated the quality and value of the top 100 most liked TikTok videos categorized with #aclrehab.

Methods

A comprehensive search was conducted in TikTok using the search parameter #aclrehab. The top 100 most-liked videos were analyzed by four independent reviewers. Video characteristics and viewer interaction parameters were analyzed as well. Videos were categorized first by source and then further classified as useful, misleading/irrelevant, or personal experience. Useful videos were assessed for reliability and comprehensiveness using a modified 5-point DISCERN scale. Personal experience videos were further categorized into positive, negative, or neutral valence. The overall quality of all videos were assessed, regardless of classification, according to the 5-point Global Quality Scale (GQS).

Results

Of the 100 videos retrieved, 21 videos were classified as useful, 68 as personal experience, and 11 as misleading/irrelevant. The GQS average for useful videos was 3.36 while the GQS averages for personal experience and irrelevant/misleading videos were 1.43 and 1.18 respectively. While significant differences in GQS scores were observed, the overall reliability and comprehensiveness of useful videos scored poorly. For videos categorized as useful, the DISCERN score average was 2.54. For the videos classified as personal experiences, the number of positive, negative, and neutral valenced videos were 14, 20, and 34 respectively.

Conclusion

This study found that the most popular TikTok videos categorized with #aclrehab are mostly personal experiences with little informational value or quality. The study also concluded that of the 21 videos classified as useful, the information regarding ACL rehabilitation is of slightly below moderate quality and reliability.

评估以 #aclrehab 分类的前 100 个最受喜爱的 TikTok 视频的质量和价值
背景TikTok 专注于短视频,已成为许多用户的常用信息来源。迄今为止,只有另外三项研究对与骨科相关的热门 TikTok 内容的质量和价值进行了描述。本研究评估了以#aclrehab.Methods在TikTok上使用搜索参数#aclrehab.进行的全面搜索。最受欢迎的前 100 个视频由四位独立审查员进行分析。同时还分析了视频特征和观众互动参数。视频首先按来源分类,然后进一步分为有用、误导/不相关或个人经历。有用视频采用改良的 5 分 DISCERN 量表来评估其可靠性和全面性。个人经历视频则进一步分为正面、负面和中性。在检索到的 100 个视频中,21 个视频被归类为有用视频,68 个视频被归类为个人经历视频,11 个视频被归类为误导/无关视频。有用视频的 GQS 平均值为 3.36,而个人经历和无关/误导视频的 GQS 平均值分别为 1.43 和 1.18。虽然 GQS 分数存在明显差异,但有用视频的整体可靠性和全面性得分较低。对于归类为有用的视频,DISCERN 的平均得分为 2.54。结论本研究发现,TikTok 上最受欢迎的 #aclrehab 分类视频大多是个人经历,信息价值或质量不高。研究还得出结论,在 21 个被归类为有用的视频中,有关前交叉韧带康复的信息质量和可靠性略低于中等水平。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信