A cross‐sectional analysis of information quality on potentially blinding eye diseases across Chinese short‐video platforms

Abstract Purpose To systematically evaluate the quality of eye disease videos on TikTok, WeChat, and rednote, explore links between engagement and quality, and offer evidence‐based guidance for ophthalmic health communication. Methods The top 100 videos retrieved using the keywords “cataract,” “glaucoma,” and “high myopia” were screened on TikTok, WeChat, and rednote on 3 October 2025. Two reviewers independently assessed video quality using Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the global quality score (GQS), modified DISCERN, and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). Group differences were analyzed using Kruskal–Wallis and χ 2 /Fisher exact tests, and adjusted associations were examined using Poisson regression with robust standard errors. Results A total of 827 eligible videos were analyzed. Most videos were uploaded by physicians and focused on disease knowledge. Across TikTok, WeChat, and rednote, video characteristics, engagement, source, content, presentation form, and quality scores differed significantly. In adjusted analyses, compared with TikTok, WeChat videos had lower likes and comments, whereas rednote videos had lower engagement across all four outcomes. High‐myopia videos showed higher engagement across all outcomes, while glaucoma videos showed higher collections and shares. Hospital‐uploaded videos were associated with lower engagement, whereas news agency videos were associated with higher engagement. Personal experience videos were associated with higher comments and collections. Higher JAMA scores were consistently associated with lower engagement, whereas modified DISCERN and PEMAT actionability showed inverse associations only for selected outcomes. Conclusions This study represents the first large‐scale cross‐sectional evaluation of science communication on potentially blinding eye diseases across major Chinese short‐video platforms. High engagement does not equate to high quality; in fact, engagement metrics were significantly negatively correlated with reliability, scientific accuracy, and understandability. Clinicians should uphold scientific rigor and use accessible and friendly language to improve public eye health literacy.