ReviewDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2021
[Advertising or information in ophthalmology? : Scientific evaluation of a YouTube sample].
Review in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Retinal vein occlusion on YouTube: how reliable is public health information in the digital era?International ophthalmology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the liberalization of the Therapeutic Products Advertising Act, advertising that praises, misleads or compares is still contrary to the German professional conduct. In view of the increasing commitment of financial investors and the economization in ophthalmology, this study was initiated to examine and check which (advertising) statements are affected in openly accessible videos on the YouTube platform.
methodsUsing the search terms "ophthalmologist" and "eye center" as well as predefined criteria (German origin, audio track with spoken text, duration >1 min), videos were identified and transcribed into an anonymized text version. Using a self-developed predefined questionnaire, the individual statements were then subjected to a critical review by three experts and clarity, relevance and completeness of the information were also assessed. At the same time, laypersons were asked how convincingly, comprehensibly and completely they assessed the information and whether they would want to be treated by the physicians.
resultsOut of 68 videos 30 met the defined inclusion criteria. Of the videos 46% focused on procedures for refractive surgery. From the experts' point of view, at least 11.8% of the individual statements were completely wrong or only slightly correct. Over 80% of the videos presented information incompletely. Perioperative and postoperative complications were only mentioned by three films. Laypersons evaluated the texts very inconsistently and could not identify the videos that contained problematic statements as assessed by the ophthalmologists. Conflicts with the legal requirements for advertising, e.g. the use of lurid superlatives were found. A balanced presentation, such as alternatives to treatment procedures was rare. There was a great need to improve the comprehensibility for laymen.
conclusionOnly a very small number of freely accessible videos provide scientifically founded and correct information. Until now, many ophthalmologists do not sufficiently consider the legal and moral requirements for advertising statements. Therefore, there may be negative effects on the professional image in the public eye and opportunities for health promotion remain unused.
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.