ArticleInteractive journal of medical research2013
Identifying Measures Used for Assessing Quality of YouTube Videos with Patient Health Information: A Review of Current Literature.
Article in Interactive journal of medical research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
56 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 203 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is YouTube a reliable source of health-related information? A systematic review.BMC medical education · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Quality, reliability, and educational value of YouTube™ videos on Pavlik harness treatment for developmental dysplasia of the hip.Journal of children's orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Evaluating the quality of Japanese YouTube videos on breast cancer treatment using PRHISM: comparison by source credibility.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2026Article
- Quality, usefulness, reliability, and accuracy of YouTube™ information on dental visits for children with autism: a cross-sectional study.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Retinal vein occlusion on YouTube: how reliable is public health information in the digital era?International ophthalmology · 2025Article
- A Content Analysis of YouTube Videos on Allergic Rhinitis Management.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2025Article
- Breast Cancer Vlogs on YouTube: Descriptive and Content Analyses.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- Quality assessment of short videos on health science popularization in China: scale development and validation.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Oral Diabetes Medication Videos on Douyin: Analysis of Information Quality and User Comment Attitudes.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Dissemination of health content through social networks: YouTube and opioid use disorders.Journal of substance use and addiction treatment · 2024Review
- Evaluating YouTube as a Good Resource for Enhancing Patient Understanding of Heart Failure.Cureus · 2024Article
- YouTube™ Videos as a Source of Information on Necrotizing Gingivitis: A Content-Quality Analysis.Cureus · 2024Article
- Source-Dependent Quality Variation in Shoulder Dislocation Videos on YouTube.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Article
- A Double-Edged Sword: Quality and Credibility of Colon Cancer Screening Content on YouTube.Cureus · 2024Article
- Public e-learning opportunities in anesthesia on YouTube.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- The paradigm shift in allergy consultations through a digital ecosystem.Frontiers in digital health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent publications on YouTube have advocated its potential for patient education. However, a reliable description of what could be considered quality information for patient education on YouTube is missing.
objectiveTo identify topics associated with the concept of quality information for patient education on YouTube in the scientific literature.
methodsA literature review was performed in MEDLINE, ISI Web of Knowledge, Scopus, and PsychINFO. Abstract selection was first conducted by two independent reviewers; discrepancies were discussed in a second abstract review with two additional independent reviewers. Full text of selected papers were analyzed looking for concepts, definitions, and topics used by its authors that focused on the quality of information on YouTube for patient education.
resultsIn total, 456 abstracts were extracted and 13 papers meeting eligibility criteria were analyzed. Concepts identified related to quality of information for patient education are categorized as expert-driven, popularity-driven, or heuristic-driven measures. These include (in descending order): (1) quality of content in 10/13 (77%), (2) view count in 9/13 (69%), (3) health professional opinion in 8/13 (62%), (4) adequate length or duration in 6/13 (46%), (5) public ratings in 5/13 (39%), (6) adequate title, tags, and description in 5/13 (39%), (7) good description or a comprehensive narrative in 4/13 (31%), (8) evidence-based practices included in video in 4/13 (31%), (9) suitability as a teaching tool in 4/13 (31%), (10) technical quality in 4/13 (31%), (11) credentials provided in video in 4/13 (31%), (12) enough amount of content to identify its objective in 3/13 (23%), and (13) viewership share in 2/13 (15%).
conclusionsOur review confirms that the current topics linked to quality of information for patient education on YouTube are unclear and not standardized. Although expert-driven, popularity-driven, or heuristic-driven measures are used as proxies to estimate the quality of video information, caution should be applied when using YouTube for health promotion and patient educational material.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.