For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
2
views
11
references
 Top references
cited by
0
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      744
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A cross‐sectional analysis of TikTok's most popular dermal filler videos

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Dermal filler injections pose serious risks when administered by untrained individuals or when food and drug administration (FDA) guidelines are not adhered to. This issue may potentially be compounded by a growing reliance on social media platforms for health information.

          Objective

          Our objective was to analyze the quality of health information in videos published on dermal filler on TikTok.

          Methods

          We searched three hashtags, #filler (2.4 billion views), #dermalfiller (132.8 million views), and #fillersinjection (137.0 million views) and assessed the top videos returned by TikTok's algorithm that met inclusion criteria. The quality of health information was evaluated using the DISCERN instrument, a validated tool that uses a 1 to 5 scale to assess consumer health information.

          Results

          Videos received a mean DISCERN score of 1.64 (SD 0.33), indicating significantly low quality. 7% of the videos promoted non‐FDA‐approved uses of filler. Notably, videos posted by physician assistants or physicians received the highest mean scores (1.92 and 1.72) as well as videos categorized as educational (1.99).

          Conclusion

          Dermatologists should be aware of the high viewership of low‐quality TikTok videos on dermal filler. Dermatologists shall, therefore, understand the importance of their role in providing education to patients on this topic.

          Abstract

          This study analyzed the quality of TikTok's most popular dermal filler videos, revealing they are of significantly poor quality. Notably, videos posted by physician assistants or physicians, and those categorized as educational, demonstrated the highest quality. Dermatologists must acknowledge the prevalence of low‐quality TikTok content on dermal fillers and recognize their crucial role in educating patients to mitigate misinformation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references11

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices.

          D Charnock, S Shepperd, G Needham … (1999)
          To develop a short instrument, called DISCERN, which will enable patients and information providers to judge the quality of written information about treatment choices. DISCERN will also facilitate the production of new, high quality, evidence-based consumer health information. An expert panel, representing a range of expertise in consumer health information, generated criteria from a random sample of information for three medical conditions with varying degrees of evidence: myocardial infarction, endometriosis, and chronic fatigue syndrome. A graft instrument, based on this analysis, was tested by the panel on a random sample of new material for the same three conditions. The panel re-drafted the instrument to take account of the results of the test. The DISCERN instrument was finally tested by a national sample of 15 information providers and 13 self help group members on a random sample of leaflets from 19 major national self help organisations. Participants also completed an 8 item questionnaire concerning the face and content validity of the instrument. Chance corrected agreement (weighted kappa) for the overall quality rating was kappa = 0.53 (95% CI kappa = 0.48 to kappa = 0.59) among the expert panel, kappa = 0.40 (95% CI kappa = 0.36 to kappa = 0.43) among information providers, and kappa = 0.23 (95% CI kappa = 0.19 to kappa = 0.27) among self help group members. Higher agreement levels were associated with experience of using the instrument and with professional knowledge of consumer health information. Levels of agreement varied across individual items on the instrument, reflecting the need for subjectivity in rating certain criteria. The trends in levels of agreement were similar among all groups. The final instrument consisted of 15 questions plus an overall quality rating. Responses to the questionnaire after the final testing revealed the instrument to have good face and content validity and to be generally applicable. DISCERN is a reliable and valid instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information. While some subjectivity is required for rating certain criteria, the findings demonstrate that the instrument can be applied by experienced users and providers of health information to discriminate between publications of high and low quality. The instrument will also be of benefit to patients, though its use will be improved by training.
          Article 0 comments Cited 509 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Consumer health information seeking in social media: a literature review

            Yuehua Zhao, Jin Jin Zhang (2017)
            Article 0 comments Cited 160 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Adverse reactions to dermal fillers: review.

              Pratap Patnaik, Jamie N Lowe, Nicola C. Maxwell (2005)
              For many patients, injectable filling agents offer the promise of facial rejuvenation while offering reduced risks compared with more invasive surgery. With the increase in products available and the rise in the number of patients seeking this type of intervention, it is crucial that both the physician and the patient are fully cognizant of the risks involved with each product. To review the incidences and types of reaction to various commonly used injectable products. A literature review and personal experiences (gained largely in Europe over the past 8 years) of dermal fillers from 1996 to the present, including illustrative case reviews. Reactions can be attributed to the procedure itself, the procedural technique, and the agent injected. Some of these reactions are preventable, whereas others are inevitable; most are mild and transient. Improving product formulations, altering the concentration of product injected, or changing the injection technique can dramatically reduce the incidence of adverse reactions. Since its reformulation in mid-1999, the biologically engineered hyaluronic acid filler Restylane (Medicis Pharmaceuticals, Scottsdale, AZ, USA) elicits less than one allergic reaction in 1600 treatments. Skin reactions with poly-L-lactic acid (New-Fill/Sculptra, Dermik Laboratories, Berwyn, PA, USA) are considerably less likely if a greater dilution and deeper injection technique are employed. Different injectable products have highly divergent properties, associated risks, and injection requirements. The dermasurgeon should be suitably experienced to select and use these products correctly.
              Article 0 comments Cited 41 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Samavia Khan:
                ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4750-616X
                sk1656@rwjms.rutgers.edu
                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Skin Health Dis
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Skin Health Dis
                Journal ID (doi): 10.1002/(ISSN)2690-442X
                Journal ID (publisher-id): SKI2
                Title: Skin Health and Disease
                Publisher: John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                ISSN (Electronic): 2690-442X
                Publication date (Electronic): 06 May 2024
                Publication date Collection: August 2024
                Volume: 4
                Issue: 4 ( doiID: 10.1002/ski2.v4.4 )
                Electronic Location Identifier: e390
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Rao Dermatology Atlantic Highlands New Jersey USA
                [ 2 ] Renaissance School of Medicine at Stony Brook University Stony Brook New York USA
                [ 3 ] Center for Dermatology Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School Somerset New Jersey USA
                [ 4 ] New York Medical College School of Medicine Valhalla New York USA
                [ 5 ] Department of Dermatology Weill Cornell Medicine New York New York USA
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Samavia Khan.

                Email: sk1656@ 123456rwjms.rutgers.edu

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1856-6304
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4750-616X
                Article
                Publisher ID: SKI2390
                DOI: 10.1002/ski2.390
                PMC ID: 11297439
                PubMed ID: 39104643
                SO-VID: fc5dc469-a55a-4c3b-aef0-f2c9641c312c
                Copyright © © 2024 The Authors. Skin Health and Disease published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.
                License:

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Date revision received : 24 March 2024
                Date received : 04 December 2023
                Date accepted : 30 March 2024
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 2, Pages: 6, Words: 3343
                Funding
                Funded by: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not‐for‐profit sectors.
                Categories
                Subject: Original Article
                Subject: Original Articles
                Custom metadata
                source-schema-version-number 2.0
                cover-date August 2024
                details-of-publishers-convertor Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.4.6 mode:remove_FC converted:03.08.2024

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article