The rapid growth of semaglutide use for weight loss has been accompanied by a proliferation of patient-shared experiences and non-evidence-based claims on video platforms. This unchecked information environment poses significant risks to public health, including potential self-medication and misunderstanding of treatment risks, underscoring the urgent need to evaluate the quality of semaglutide-related video content to safeguard digital health literacy. This study assesses the quality, reliability, and user engagement of semaglutide-related short videos on TikTok and Bilibili.
Approach
This cross-sectional study analyzed the top 100 semaglutide-related videos from TikTok and Bilibili, using keyword searches. Videos were evaluated using JAMA benchmark criteria, Global Quality Scale (GQS), and DISCERN tools.
Setting
Retrieving top 100 videos from TikTok (Mar 4, 2025) and Bilibili (Mar 8, 2025) using “司美格鲁肽” (Semaglutide) as the search keyword.
Participants
200 videos and their characteristics.
Results
Among 200 videos, no statistically significant inter-platform differences in JAMA, GQS or DISCERN scores were observed. Non-professional organizations achieved higher JAMA scores than individual creators (P < .01). Medical information videos scored higher than personal experience content (P < .0001). Engagement metrics (likes) correlated weakly with quality (r = 0.151, P < .05), while longer videos were associated with higher DISCERN scores (r = 0.273, P < .001) but not increased engagement.
Conclusions
Semaglutide-related videos on TikTok and Bilibili show moderate quality, with medical professionals and institutions producing more reliable content. However, user engagement remains a poor indicator of quality. These findings call for platform governance to algorithmically promote evidence-based content and verify credible creators, while public health efforts should steer user attention from popularity to credibility, thereby protecting informed decision-making.
KaragiannisTMalandrisKAvgerinosI, et al.Subcutaneously administered tirzepatide vs semaglutide for adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Diabetologia. 2024;67(7):1206-1222. doi:10.1007/s00125-024-06144-1.
2.
GudzuneKAKushnerRF. Medications for obesity: a review. JAMA. 2024;332(7):571-584. doi:10.1001/jama.2024.10816.
3.
ColhounHMLingvayIBrownPM, et al.Long-term kidney outcomes of semaglutide in obesity and cardiovascular disease in the SELECT trial. Nat Med. 2024;30(7):2058-2066. doi:10.1038/s41591-024-03015-5.
4.
ApperlooEMGorrizJLSolerMJ, et al.Semaglutide in patients with overweight or obesity and chronic kidney disease without diabetes: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial. Nat Med. 2025;31(1):278-285. doi:10.1038/s41591-024-03327-6.
5.
RyanDHLingvayIDeanfieldJ, et al.Long-term weight loss effects of semaglutide in obesity without diabetes in the Select trial. Nat Med. 2024;30(7):2049-2057. doi:10.1038/s41591-024-02996-7.
6.
ButlerJAbildstrømSZBorlaugBA, et al.Semaglutide in patients with obesity and heart failure across mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2023;82(22):2087-2096. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2023.09.811.
7.
CompGDyerSGottliebM. Is TikTok the next social media frontier for medicine?AEM Educ Train. 2021;5(3):10532. doi:10.1002/aet2.10532.
8.
HeZWangZSongY, 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. 2023;25:e41518. doi:10.2196/41518.
9.
WuHPengJLiS, et al.Comparative analysis of NAFLD-related health videos on TikTok: a cross-language study in the USA and China. BMC Public Health. 2024;24(1):3375. doi:10.1186/s12889-024-20851-9.
10.
LiangZChenJ. An Al-BERT-Bi-GRU-LDA algorithm for negative sentiment analysis on bilibili comments. PeerJ Comput Sci. 2024;10:e2029. doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.2029.
11.
LiBZhaoJ. Visual-audio correspondence and its effect on video tipping: evidence from bilibili vlogs. Inf Process Manag. 2023;60(3):103347. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2023.103347.
12.
ZhaoHWagnerC. How TikTok leads users to flow experience: investigating the effects of technology affordances with user experience level and video length as moderators. Internet Res. 2023;33(2):820-849. doi:10.1108/INTR-08-2021-0595.
13.
WangMYaoNWangJChenWOuyangYXieC. Bilibili, TikTok, and YouTube as sources of information on gastric cancer: assessment and analysis of the content and quality. BMC Public Health. 2024;24(1):57. doi:10.1186/s12889-023-17323-x.
14.
SorliCHarashimaSITsoukasGM, et al.Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide monotherapy versus placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 1): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multinational, multicentre phase 3a trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017;5(4):251-260. doi:10.1016/S2213-8587(17)30013-X.
15.
YamadaYKatagiriHHamamotoY, et al.Dose-response, efficacy, and safety of oral semaglutide monotherapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (PIONEER 9): a 52-week, phase 2/3a, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2020;8(5):377-391. doi:10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30075-9.
16.
KellsMRDavisHARoskeCHolzmanSWildesJE. The experience of treatment for eating disorders as told by content creators on TikTok. Eat Disord. 2024;33:1-19. doi:10.1080/10640266.2024.2401669. Published online September 23.
17.
DavisHAPatarinskiAGGKosmasJARoskeCKellsM. Does watching short-form #WhatIEatInADay videos impact eating disorder cognitions and urges to engage in eating disorder behaviors? An experimental investigation of TikTok. Appetite. 2025;211:108002. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2025.108002. Published online April 4, 2025.
18.
BradyWJJacksonJCLindströmBCrockettMJ. Algorithm-mediated social learning in online social networks. Trends Cognit Sci. 2023;27(10):947-960. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2023.06.008.
19.
KönigLKuhlmeyASuhrR. Digital health literacy of the population in Germany and its association with physical health, mental health, life satisfaction, and health behaviors: nationally representative survey study. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2024;10:e48685. doi:10.2196/48685.
20.
QiuCSLunovaTGreenfieldG, et al.Determinants of digital health literacy: international cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res. 2025;27:e66631. doi:10.2196/66631.
21.
Borges do NascimentoIJPizarroABAlmeidaJM, et al.Infodemics and health misinformation: a systematic review of reviews. Bull World Health Organ. 2022;100(9):544-561. doi:10.2471/BLT.21.287654.
22.
LahootiAHassanACritelliB, et al.Quality and popularity trends of weight loss procedure videos on TikTok. Obes Surg. 2023;33(3):714-719. doi:10.1007/s11695-022-06409-x.
23.
BrooksRChristidisRCarahNKellyBMartinoFBackholerK. Turning users into “unofficial brand ambassadors”: marketing of unhealthy food and non-alcoholic beverages on TikTok. BMJ Glob Health. 2022;7(6):e009112. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2022-009112.
24.
LookingbillVMohammadiECaiY. Assessment of accuracy, user engagement, and themes of eating disorder content in social media short videos. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(4):e238897. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.8897.
25.
SunFZhengSWuJ. Quality of information in gallstone disease videos on TikTok: cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e39162. doi:10.2196/39162.
26.
ZhengSTongXWanDHuCHuQKeQ. Quality and reliability of liver cancer-related short Chinese videos on TikTok and bilibili: cross-sectional content analysis study. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e47210. doi:10.2196/47210.
27.
FerhatogluMFKartalAEkiciUGurkanA. Evaluation of the reliability, utility, and quality of the information in sleeve gastrectomy videos shared on open access video sharing platform YouTube. Obes Surg. 2019;29(5):1477-1484. doi:10.1007/s11695-019-03738-2.
28.
ZengFZhangWWangMZhangHZhuXHuH. Douyin and bilibili as sources of information on lung cancer in China through assessment and analysis of the content and quality. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):20604. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-70640-y.
29.
ZhengSTongXWanDHuCHuQKeQ. Quality and reliability of liver cancer–related short Chinese videos on TikTok and bilibili: cross-sectional content analysis study. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e47210. doi:10.2196/47210.
30.
SilbergWMLundbergGDMusacchioRA. Assessing, Controlling, and Assuring the Quality of Medical Information on the Internet: caveant Lector et Viewor—Let the Reader and Viewer Beware. JAMA. 1997;277(15):1244-1245. doi:10.1001/jama.1997.03540390074039.
31.
DuRZhangYWangMLuNHuY. TikTok and bilibili as sources of information on Helicobacter pylori in China: a content and quality analysis. Helicobacter. 2023;28(5):e13007. doi:10.1111/hel.13007.
32.
KyaruntsMMansukhaniMPLoukianovaLLKollaBP. Assessing the quality of publicly available videos on MDMA-assisted psychotherapy for PTSD. Am J Addict. 2022;31(6):502-507. doi:10.1111/ajad.13325.
33.
CuiNLuYCaoYChenXFuSSuQ. Quality assessment of TikTok as a source of information about mitral valve regurgitation in China: cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res. 2024;26:e55403. doi:10.2196/55403.
34.
CharnockDShepperdSNeedhamGGannR. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999;53(2):105-111. doi:10.1136/jech.53.2.105.
35.
SubramanianTAraghiKAkosmanI, et al.Quality of spine surgery information on social media: a DISCERN analysis of TikTok videos. Neurospine. 2023;20(4):1443-1449. doi:10.14245/ns.2346700.350.
36.
LandisJRKochGG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159-174.
37.
SunYLiuXZhangXXuQLiA. Health information analysis of cryptorchidism-related short videos: analyzing quality and reliability. Digit Health. 2025;11:20552076251317578. doi:10.1177/20552076251317578.
38.
ChenYWangQHuangX, et al.The quality and reliability of short videos about thyroid nodules on BiliBili and TikTok: cross-sectional study. Digit Health. 2024;10:20552076241288831. doi:10.1177/20552076241288831.
39.
CaiYZengHYangPXuXLaiYZhouY. The status quo of short video as sources of health information on gastroesophageal reflux disease in China: a cross-sectional study. Front Public Health. 2024;12:1400749. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2024.1400749.
40.
MuellerSMHonglerVNSJungoP, 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. 2020;22(4):e15599. doi:10.2196/15599.
41.
GoobieGCGulerSAJohannsonKAFisherJHRyersonCJ. YouTube videos as a source of misinformation on idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2019;16(5):572-579. doi:10.1513/AnnalsATS.201809-644OC.
42.
MetzlerHGarciaD. Social drivers and algorithmic mechanisms on digital media. Perspect Psychol Sci J Assoc Psychol Sci. 2024;19(5):735-748. doi:10.1177/17456916231185057.
43.
KeselmanAArnott SmithCLeroyGKaufmanDR. Factors influencing willingness to share health misinformation videos on the internet: web-based survey. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(12):e30323. doi:10.2196/30323.
44.
GasoyanHPfohERSchulteRLePRothbergMB. Early- and later-stage persistence with antiobesity medications: a retrospective cohort study. Obes Silver Spring Md. 2024;32(3):486-493. doi:10.1002/oby.23952.
ChenZPanSZuoS. TikTok and YouTube as sources of information on anal fissure: a comparative analysis. Front Public Health. 2022;10:1000338. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.1000338.
47.
JiLAhmannAJAhrénB, et al.Proportion of participants with type 2 diabetes achieving a metabolic composite endpoint with once-weekly semaglutide treatment versus comparators: post hoc pooled analysis from SUSTAIN 1-5, 7-10 and SUSTAIN China. Diabetes Obes Metabol. 2024;26(1):233-241. doi:10.1111/dom.15309.
48.
JiLLuYShenZ, et al.Impact of baseline characteristics on the efficacy of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide among participants with type 2 diabetes: a post hoc analysis of Sustain China. Diabetes Obes Metabol. 2024;26(11):5312-5324. doi:10.1111/dom.15888.
49.
WillemsRAnnemansLSiopisG, et al.Cost effectiveness review of text messaging, smartphone application, and website interventions targeting T2DM or hypertension. NPJ Digit Med. 2023;6(1):150. doi:10.1038/s41746-023-00876-x.
50.
McDermottEHealyGMullenG, et al.Patient education in inflammatory bowel disease: a patient-centred, mixed methodology study. J Crohns Colitis. 2018;12(4):419-424. doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjx175.
51.
MoorheadSAHazlettDEHarrisonLCarrollJKIrwinAHovingC. A new dimension of health care: systematic review of the uses, benefits, and limitations of social media for health communication. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(4):e85. doi:10.2196/jmir.1933.
52.
PrestinAVieuxSNChouWYS. Is online health activity alive and well or flatlining? Findings from 10 years of the health information national trends survey. J Health Commun. 2015;20(7):790-798. doi:10.1080/10810730.2015.1018590.
53.
HoeCYWAhmadBWattersonJ. The use of videos for diabetes patient education: a systematic review. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2024;40(2):e3722. doi:10.1002/dmrr.3722.
54.
StevensonJKCampbellZCWebsterAC, et al.eHealth interventions for people with chronic kidney disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;8(8):CD012379. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD012379.pub2.
TikTok’s sick-role subculture and what to Do about it. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2022;61(3):351-353. doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2021.09.312
57.
Harnessing youth engagement with mental health TikTok and its potential as a public health tool. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2023;62(7):710-712. doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2022.11.015
58.
HerrickSSCHallwardLDuncanLR. “This is just how I cope”: an inductive thematic analysis of eating disorder recovery content created and shared on TikTok using #EDrecovery. Int J Eat Disord. 2021;54(4):516-526. doi:10.1002/eat.23463.
59.
KongWSongSZhaoYCZhuQShaL. TikTok as a health information source: assessment of the quality of information in diabetes-related videos. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(9):e30409. doi:10.2196/30409.
60.
DingRKongQSunL, et al.Health information in short videos about metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: analysing quality and reliability. Liver Int. 2024;44(6):1373-1382. doi:10.1111/liv.15871.
61.
YangSZhanJXuX. Is TikTok a high-quality source of information on thyroid cancer?Endocrine. 2023;81(2):270-276. doi:10.1007/s12020-023-03332-8.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
