ArticleWorld journal of urology2021
Systematic assessment of information about surgical urinary stone treatment on YouTube.
Article in World journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Conflict of interest and funding in health communication on social media: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2023Pooled it
- Assessing the educational value of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy videos on YouTube®: A comparative analysis of short versus long videos.Journal of minimal access surgery · 2025Article
- YouTube as a Source of Patient and Trainee Education in Vascular Surgery: A Systematic Review.EJVES vascular forum · 2024Review
- Analysis of quality information provided by "Dr. YouTubeInternational journal of impotence research · 2023Article
- Quality and utility of YouTube videos about mPCNL.Urolithiasis · 2022Article
- An analysis of misleading YouTube videos on urological conditions: what to do about the danger of spreading misinformation of the YouTube videos?World journal of urology · 2022Article
- Radiotherapy or Surgery? Comparative, Qualitative Assessment of Online Patient Education Materials on Prostate Cancer.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021Article
- Evaluation of YouTube Videos as a Source of Patient Information for Ureteric Stent Placement: A Quality Assessment Study.Frontiers in surgery · 2021Article
- YouTube as a source of patient information on robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a cross-sectional study of quality, reliability, transparency, and content gaps.Therapeutic advances in urologyArticle
- Content quality and reliability of the YouTube videos about chronic prostatitis.Colombia medica (Cali, Colombia)Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo systematically assess the quality of videos on the surgical treatment of urinary stones available on YouTube using validated instruments.
methodsA systematic search for videos on YouTube addressing treatment options of urinary stones was performed in October 2019. Assessed parameters included basic data (e.g. number of views), the grade of misinformation reporting of conflicts of interest. Quality of content was analyzed using the validated DISCERN questionnaire. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
resultsA total of 100 videos with a median of 26,234 views (1020-1,720,521) were included in the analysis. Of these, only 26 videos were rated to contain no misinformation and only nine disclosed potential conflicts of interest. Overall, the median quality of the videos was low (2 out of 5 points for DISCERN question 16). Videos uploaded by healthcare professionals and medical societies/organizations offered significantly higher levels of quality. In particular, the videos provided by the EAU achieved the highest rating with a median score of 3.0.
conclusionsThe majority of videos concerning the surgical treatment of urinary stones have a low quality of content, are potentially subject to commercial bias and do not report on conflicts of interest. Videos provided by medical societies, such as the EAU, provide a higher level of quality. This highlights the importance of active recommendation of evidence-based patient education materials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32468108What 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.