ArticleClinical rheumatology2016
A qualitative analysis of methotrexate self-injection education videos on YouTube.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 125 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is YouTube a reliable source of health-related information? A systematic review.BMC medical education · 2022Pooled it
- "And just like that, quiet": a content analysis of TikTok videos on food noise.Nutrition & diabetes · 2026Article
- Analysis of the YouTube videos on intracavernosal injection in terms of their comprehensiveness, reliability and quality.International journal of impotence research · 2026Article
- Early detection of rheumatoid arthritis through patient empowerment by tailored digital monitoring and education: a feasibility study.Rheumatology international · 2025Article
- Disease Impact and Perception of Biologics in Adults with Type 2 Inflammation Respiratory Disease: International Survey Results.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Article
- Article
- The efficacy and reliability of English YouTube videos as a source of information for pregnant rheumatoid arthritis patients.Clinical rheumatology · 2023Article
- Assessment of quality and reliability of YouTube videos for patient and physician education on inflammatory myositis.Clinical rheumatology · 2023Article
- Assessment of quality, absorbability, and educational value of YouTube videos regarding ankle fractures.Journal of orthopaedics · 2023Article
- Value of Online Videos as a Shoulder Injection Training Tool for Physicians and Usability of Current Video Evaluation Tools.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- The Quality, Reliability, and Accuracy of Videos Regarding Exercises and Management for Dysphagia in Pediatric Populations Uploaded on YouTube.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Can "YouTube" help healthcare workers for learning accurate donning and doffing of personal protective equipments?Enfermedades infecciosas y microbiologia clinica (English ed.) · 2022Article
- Content Quality of YouTube Videos About Gestational Diabetes: Systematic Evaluation.JMIR diabetes · 2022Article
- Assessment of the Quality, Understandability, and Reliability of YouTube Videos as a Source of Information on Basal Cell Carcinoma: Web-Based Analysis.JMIR cancer · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the Reliability and Quality of YouTube Video Content about Perianal Fistulas.BioMed research international · 2022Article
- Article
- Impact of Routines and Rituals on Burden of Treatment, Patient Training, Cognitive Load, and Anxiety in Self-Injected Biologic Therapy.Patient preference and adherence · 2022Article
- Are YouTube videos enough to learn anakinra self-injection?Rheumatology international · 2021Article
- Quality of internet videos related to exercise therapy of ankylosing spondylitis from mainland China : Content analysis.Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie · 2021Article
- YouTube as a source of information on COVID-19 vaccination in rheumatic diseases.Rheumatology international · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study is to identify and evaluate the quality of videos for patients available on YouTube for learning to self-administer subcutaneous methotrexate. Using the search term "Methotrexate injection," two clinical reviewers analyzed the first 60 videos on YouTube. Source and search rank of video, audience interaction, video duration, and time since video was uploaded on YouTube were recorded. Videos were classified as useful, misleading, or a personal patient view. Videos were rated for reliability, comprehensiveness, and global quality scale (GQS). Reasons for misleading videos were documented, and patient videos were documented as being either positive or negative towards methotrexate (MTX) injection. Fifty-one English videos overlapped between the two geographic locations; 10 videos were classified as useful (19.6 %), 14 misleading (27.5 %), and 27 personal patient view (52.9 %). Total views of videos were 161,028: 19.2 % useful, 72.8 % patient, and 8.0 % misleading. Mean GQS: 4.2 (±1.0) useful, 1.6 (±1.1) misleading, and 2.0 (±0.9) for patient videos (p < 0.0001). Mean reliability: 3.3 (±0.6) useful, 0.9 (±1.2) misleading, and 1.0 (±0.7) for patient videos (p < 0.0001). Comprehensiveness: 2.2 (±1.9) useful, 0.1 (±0.3) misleading, and 1.5 (±1.5) for patient view videos (p = 0.0027). This study demonstrates a minority of videos are useful for teaching MTX injection. Further, video quality does not correlate with video views. While web video may be an additional educational tool available, clinicians need to be familiar with specific resources to help guide and educate their patients to ensure best outcomes.
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.