ArticleInvestigative and clinical urology2021
YouTube: A good source for retrograde intrarenal surgery?
Article in Investigative and clinical urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- YouTube and TikTok as patient resources: assessment of online video content on extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.Central European journal of urology · 2026Article
- An assessment of the quality and readability level of online content on urinary tract infection treatment in Spanish and English.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Article
- Quality and reliability of YouTube videos on fascial sling surgery.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2025Article
- Decoding YouTube: An In-depth Analysis of Living Donor Kidney Transplantation Videos and Their Implications for Patient Education.European urology open science · 2024Article
- The Quality of MitraClip™ Content on YouTube.Cureus · 2023Article
- Do YouTube videos on microscopic varicocelectomy provide reliable information?Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2023Article
- Quality and utility of YouTube videos about mPCNL.Urolithiasis · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the quality of videos for retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) on YouTube (Google, LLC) from the perspective of both patients and physicians. MATERIALS AND
methodsAll videos longer than 2 minutes returned by the YouTube search engine in response to the keyword search "retrograde intrarenal surgery" were included in this study. The quality of content was analyzed by using the validated Journal of the American Medical Association Benchmark Score (JAMAS) and the Global Quality Score (GQS). Two surgeons developed the RIRS Scoring System (RIRSSS) to evaluate the technical quality of the videos. A video power index (VPI) was used to score the popularity of the videos.
resultsA total of 63 videos with a median of 389 views were included in the present study. Forty-three videos (68.3%) were provided by health care professionals and 53 videos (84.1%) included technical aspects about RIRS. The median (interquartile range) GQS, JAMAS, RIRSSS, and VPI scores were 2 (1-3), 1 (1-2), 2 (1-5), and 0.41 (0.08-1.29), respectively. Videos with audio had significantly higher GQS and RIRSSS scores than did with videos with no audio (p<0.001, p=0.039, respectively). The GQS of videos providing general information about RIRS was higher, whereas RIRSSS scores were higher for videos detailing technical aspects (p=0.027, p=0.038, respectively).
conclusionsThe quality of YouTube videos containing information about RIRS evaluated in this study was very low. It is necessary for health care organizations to prepare online materials and upload these materials to popular social media platforms to convey accurate information to patients.
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.