ArticlePeerJ2013
A systematic review of methods for studying consumer health YouTube videos, with implications for systematic reviews.
Article in PeerJ, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 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
46 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Approaches to Research Ethics in Health Research on YouTube: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Pooled it
- Too many crying babies: a systematic review of pain management practices during immunizations on YouTube.BMC pediatrics · 2014Pooled it
- Content and quality analysis of YouTube videos on therapeutic exercises for Parkinson's disease.Journal of Parkinson's disease · 2026Article
- Educational quality and viewer engagement of Youtube videos on ceramic implants: a cross-sectional study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Quality and guideline adherence of child-oriented toothbrushing videos on YouTube: a comparative study of Turkish and English content.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Quality, usefulness, reliability, and accuracy of YouTube™ information on dental visits for children with autism: a cross-sectional study.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Is YouTube a reliable source of current information and education about urodynamics? A cross-sectional analysis.BMC urology · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the quality and reliability of Turkish and English YouTube video contents on gingival recession treatment.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Evaluating YouTube as a Good Resource for Enhancing Patient Understanding of Heart Failure.Cureus · 2024Article
- Hip and Knee Total Joint Arthroplasty Online Resources for Patients and Health Care Professionals: A Canadian Environmental Scan.Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Quality and Content Analysis: Can YouTube Videos on Agoraphobia Be Considered a Reliable Source?Cureus · 2023Article
- Is YouTube™ a good source of information for patients to understand laparoscopic fundoplication?Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2023Article
- Quality and Reliability Analysis of YouTube Videos on Magnetic Resonance Imaging Claustrophobia.Cureus · 2023Article
- How high is the quality of the videos about children's elbow fractures on Youtube?Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Article
- Video clips of the Mediterranean Diet on YouTubeAmerican journal of health promotion : AJHP · 2023Article
- YouTube as a Source of Information on Pilonidal Sinus Disease: A Reliability and Quality Analysis.Cureus · 2023Article
- Adolescent Anxiety and TikTok: An Exploratory Study.Cureus · 2022Article
- YouTube as a source of information on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.Medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background. YouTube is an increasingly important medium for consumer health information - with content provided by healthcare professionals, government and non-government organizations, industry, and consumers themselves. It is a rapidly developing area of study for healthcare researchers. We examine the methods used in reviews of YouTube consumer health videos to identify trends and best practices. Methods and Materials. Published reviews of consumer-oriented health-related YouTube videos were identified through PubMed. Data extracted from these studies included type of journal, topic, characteristics of the search, methods of review including number of reviewers and method to achieve consensus between reviewers, inclusion and exclusion criteria, characteristics of the videos reported, ethical oversight, and follow-up. Results. Thirty-three studies were identified. Most were recent and published in specialty journals. Typically, these included more than 100 videos, and were examined by multiple reviewers. Most studies described characteristics of the videos, number of views, and sometime characteristics of the viewers. Accuracy of portrayal of the health issue under consideration was a common focus. Conclusion. Optimal transparency and reproducibility of studies of YouTube health-related videos can be achieved by following guidance designed for systematic review reporting, with attention to several elements specific to the video medium. Particularly when seeking to replicate consumer viewing behavior, investigators should consider the method used to select search terms, and use a snowballing rather than a sequential screening approach. Discontinuation protocols for online screening of relevance ranked search results is an area identified for further development.
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.