# Quality evaluation of scar management information on TikTok: a cross-sectional study

**Authors:** Ming Wang, Yi-Jing Jin, Feng Xu

PMC · DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2026.1709429 · Frontiers in Public Health · 2026-02-20

## TL;DR

This study finds that while healthcare professionals post higher-quality scar management content on TikTok, non-professionals often get more engagement, spreading misinformation.

## Contribution

The study introduces the concept of an 'engagement paradox' where low-quality content outperforms professional, evidence-based posts on TikTok.

## Key findings

- Healthcare professionals' content scored significantly higher in quality than non-professionals' posts.
- 46.2% of content creator videos contained misinformation.
- Lower-quality videos from non-professionals received more likes and shares than professional content.

## Abstract

Social media platforms like TikTok significantly influence health behaviors, yet the quality of scar management content remains under-evaluated. This study analyzes the quality, reliability, and actionability of scar management information on TikTok and examines the relationship between content quality and user engagement.

A cross-sectional analysis of the 100 most-liked scar management videos was conducted. Two independent raters evaluated videos using mDISCERN, JAMA benchmark criteria, PEMAT-A/V, and the Global Quality Score (GQS). Creators were categorized as healthcare professionals (HCPs), content creators, or general users.

Healthcare professionals produced higher-quality content (GQS: 3.45 vs. 2.15 for creators; p < 0.001) with significantly better reliability and actionability. However, an “engagement paradox” was observed: lower-quality videos from non-professionals garnered significantly higher engagement (likes, shares) than evidence-based professional content. Misinformation was prevalent in 46.2% of content creator videos.

A structural disconnect exists on TikTok where accurate medical advice is overshadowed by algorithmically favored, visually stimulating, but often misleading content. Addressing this public health risk requires platform-level algorithmic adjustments and enhanced digital strategies from medical professionals to compete in the attention economy.

## Full-text entities

- **Diseases:** keloid (MESH:D007627), infection (MESH:D007239), hypertrophic and keloid scars (MESH:D017439), contact dermatitis (MESH:D003877), depression (MESH:D003866), anxiety (MESH:D001007), skin reactions (MESH:D012871), pain (MESH:D010146), trauma (MESH:D014947), contractures (MESH:D003286), burns (MESH:D002056), pruritus (MESH:D011537), Scar (MESH:D002921)
- **Chemicals:** DIY (-), silicone (MESH:D012828)
- **Species:** Homo sapiens (human, species) [taxon 9606], Citrus x limon (lemon, species) [taxon 2708]

## Full text

_Full body text omitted from this summary view._ Fetch the complete paper as Markdown: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12963336/full.md

## Figures

1 figure with captions in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12963336/full.md

## References

14 references — full list in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12963336/full.md

---
Source: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12963336