ArticleBioMed research international2020
Analysis of the Most Viewed First 50 Videos on YouTube about Breast Cancer.
Article in BioMed research international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 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
45 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 78 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality of Cancer-Related Information on New Media (2014-2023): Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluating the information quality and reliability of ovarian cancer educational content on TikTok and Bilibili: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Evaluating the quality of Japanese YouTube videos on breast cancer treatment using PRHISM: comparison by source credibility.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2026Article
- Quality Assessment of Videos about Radiotherapy-Related Oral Mucositis on YouTube in Brazil.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2025Article
- Informational Quality of YouTube Content on Partial Meniscectomy Remains Inadequate.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- TikTok Videos Related to the Posterior Cruciate Ligament Have Low Educational Value.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Article
- YouTube Videos Provide Low-Quality Educational Content About the Anterolateral Ligament of the Knee.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Videos in short-video sharing platforms as sources of information on osteoarthritis: cross-sectional content analysis study.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Evaluating YouTube Videos With Prophylactic Mastectomy Content in Terms of Their Quality and Reliability.The breast journal · 2025Article
- In Web We Trust: The Promised Cannabidiol Effects on Obesity as a Matter of Language and Marketing on Webpages.Current neuropharmacology · 2025Article
- Assessing quality and reliability of online videos on tachycardia: a YouTube video-based study.BMC public health · 2024Article
- YouTube videos on lymphedema as an information source for Spanish speaking breast cancer survivors.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Article
- Meniscus-Related Videos on TikTok Are Widely Viewed and Shared but the Educational Quality for Patients Is Poor.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- TikTok content as a source of health education regarding epicondylitis: a content analysis.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2024Article
- Validity of Material Related to the Anterior Cruciate Ligament on TikTok.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2024Article
- Evaluating the Reliability of YouTube as a Source of Information for Meniscal Ramp Lesions.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2024Article
- Characterizing informational needs and information seeking behavior of patients with breast cancer.American journal of surgery · 2024Article
- A novel system to provide information via online YouTube videos and an evaluation of current online information about hereditary breast cancer.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2024Article
- A content analysis of YouTube videos on palliative care: understanding the quality and availability of online resources.Palliative care and social practice · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveBreast cancer is the most common cancer type among women worldwide. Today, health consumers search the Internet to gain health information about many diseases including breast cancer. YouTube™ is the second most commonly used website on the Internet. However, the quality and accuracy of health-related YouTube™ videos are controversial. The objective of this study was to investigate the quality and accuracy of breast cancer-related videos on YouTube™.
resultsOf all videos, 14% were uploaded by physicians, 26% by health channels, 20% by patients, 10% by news channels, 2% by herbalists, 2% by blog channels, and 2% by nonprofit activism channels. The mean DISCERN score was calculated as 26.70 ± 10.99 and the mean JAMA score as 2.23 ± 0.97. The mean VPI value, which was calculated to determine the popularity of the videos, was found as 94.10 ± 4.48. A strong statistically significant correlation was found between the two observers in terms of both DISCERN and JAMA scores. There was an excellent agreement between the two observers.
conclusionThe overall quality of the viewed videos was found as poor. Healthcare professionals should be encouraged to upload breast cancer-related videos with accurate information to promote patients for screening and direct them appropriately.
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.