Back

When Algorithms Prescribe: A Cross-Sectional Study of Quality, Misinformation, and Engagement in Statin-Related Content on TikTok

Gharibyan, I.; Ahner, E.; Shao, R.; Sharma, D.; Navarsartian Tazehkand, T.; Diep, J.; Assoumou, B.

2026-06-08 health informatics
10.64898/2026.06.04.26354962 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Statins are key to preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and cardiovascular events. However, skepticism regarding their safety and value persists and is increasingly influenced by social media. TikTok has emerged as a major source of health information, but its content varies in quality and accuracy. This study evaluated the quality, attitudes, misinformation, and engagement of statin-related content on TikTok. Methods: Public TikTok videos were collected using predefined search terms and coded by creator type, thematic content, and overall attitude. Video quality was assessed using the DISCERN instrument, the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audiovisual Materials, and the Global Quality Score. False or misleading claims were independently reviewed by two cardiology fellows. Associations between engagement and quality were also examined. Results: Of 1,349 screened videos, 258 met inclusion criteria. Most were educational (91.0%), with non-physician healthcare providers (34.5%) as the largest creator group. Risks or negative effects were discussed more often than benefits (63.2% vs 42.2%), and 39.5% contained at least one false or misleading claim, most often from complementary and alternative medicine providers and wellness promoters. Quality differed by creator type across all instruments, with physician-created content scoring highest. Video popularity showed minimal association with informational quality. Conclusion: Statin-related TikTok content frequently emphasizes harms, often contains misinformation, and varies substantially in quality by creator type. Greater involvement of healthcare professionals on social media may help improve digital health literacy and counter misleading information about statin therapy.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.0%
2
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
6.2%
3
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.7%
4
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.7%
5
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.7%
6
DIGITAL HEALTH
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.5%
7
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 40%
3.5%
50% of probability mass above
8
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
45 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.5%
9
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.5%
10
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 6%
3.5%
11
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.7%
12
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.5%
13
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.5%
14
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.0%
15
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.8%
16
Preventive Medicine Reports
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.4%
17
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
18
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
19
JAMA
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
20
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
49 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
21
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
22
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
14 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
23
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 71%
0.9%
24
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.9%
25
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
26
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
27
Heart
10 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
28
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
29
BMC Medical Genomics
36 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
30
European Journal of Human Genetics
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%