ArticleSexual medicine2020
Quality of Information in YouTube Videos on Erectile Dysfunction.
Article in Sexual medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.
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
32 citing papers in PubMed, 88 citations in OpenAlex.
- YouTube as a Reliable Source of Patient Education for Peyronie's Disease: A Quality Assessment Study.Cureus · 2026Article
- Dissemination of misleading and biased information about benign prostate hyperplasia on YouTube in the Republic of Korea.Prostate international · 2026Article
- YouTube as a source of information on retrograde ejaculation: insights into content reliability.International journal of impotence research · 2026Article
- Article
- Analysis of the YouTube videos on intracavernosal injection in terms of their comprehensiveness, reliability and quality.International journal of impotence research · 2026Article
- YouTube and TikTok as patient resources: assessment of online video content on extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.Central European journal of urology · 2026Article
- Impacts of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights Misinformation in Digital Spaces on Human Rights Protection and Promotion: Scoping Review.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- Social Media and Men's Health: Separating Science from Speculation in Andrology.Basic and clinical andrology · 2025Review
- Video platforms and sexual healthcare in China: assessment of content on premature ejaculation.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Article
- Evaluating quality, understandability, and actionability of YouTube content for gender-affirming surgery.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2025Article
- Quality and benefits of the erectile dysfunction information on websites, social-media, and applications.International journal of impotence research · 2024Review
- Response to commentary on: assessing ChatGPT's ability to answer questions pertaining to erectile dysfunction: can our patients trust it?International journal of impotence research · 2024Article
- Analysis of the quality of information provided by "Dr. YouTube™" on premature ejaculation.Industrial psychiatry journal · 2024Article
- Developing a Tool for Assessing the Process of Seeking Health Information: Online Think-Aloud Method.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Is Reddit a reliable source for information on erectile dysfunction treatment?International journal of impotence research · 2023Article
- Quality and Content Analysis: Can YouTube Videos on Agoraphobia Be Considered a Reliable Source?Cureus · 2023Article
- Analysis of quality information provided by "Dr. YouTubeInternational journal of impotence research · 2023Article
- Social Media and Apps in Urology.Current surgery reports · 2023Review
- Quality and Reliability Analysis of YouTube Videos on Magnetic Resonance Imaging Claustrophobia.Cureus · 2023Article
- Realfood and Cancer: Analysis of the Reliability and Quality of YouTube Content.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMany patients seek information online including on social media.
aimTo assess the quality of information regarding erectile dysfunction (ED) in YouTube videos.
methodsWe searched "erectile dysfunction" on YouTube in October 2019 and evaluated the first 100 videos in English sorted by relevance.
main outcome measureWe recorded the user engagement, video producer, intended audience, and content. Videos containing medical information were evaluated using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) and the DISCERN quality criteria for consumer health information. The PEMAT evaluates the understandability and actionability of materials as a percentage. The DISCERN assesses the quality of information by a scale from 1 (serious or extensive shortcomings) to 5 (minimal shortcomings).
resultsThe median number of total views was 22,450 (range 591-20,255,133) and the median number of views/month was 654 (range 9-723,398). 42 percent of the videos were posted by professional medical institutions, and 21% were posted by individual medical professionals. Most videos were aimed at the general public or patients suffering from ED. The median PEMAT understandability and actionability scores were both 100% (range 50-100% and 33-100%, respectively). The median DISCERN score was 2 (range 1-5) with 80.4% receiving a score of ≤3. Overall, 28% of the videos contained direct misinformation. DISCERN scores were higher in videos produced by medical institutions (P = .0104), not selling specific products (P = .007) and not promoting alternative medicine (P = .0002). The number of subscribers was an independent predictor of views/month (P < .0001).
conclusionPatients may be exposed to videos of poor quality when searching for information about ED on YouTube. The medical community needs to adapt a strategy to improve the quality of online medical information. Fode M, Nolsøe AB, Jacobsen FM, et al. Quality of Information in YouTube Videos on Erectile Dysfunction. J Sex Med 2020;8:408-413.
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.