ArticleCureus2021
Reliability and Quality of YouTube Contents Pertaining to Pancreatic Cancer.
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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
25 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating YouTube Videos With Prophylactic Mastectomy Content in Terms of Their Quality and Reliability.The breast journal · 2025Article
- Assessment of the content and quality of YouTube videos on retinopathy of prematurity: a cross-sectional study.Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia · 2025Article
- AI-Enhanced evaluation of YouTube content on post-surgical incontinence following pelvic cancer treatment.SSM - population health · 2024Article
- Assessing the Quality of YouTube's Incontinence Information after Cancer Surgery: An Innovative Graphical Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the Quality and Comprehensiveness of YouTube Videos Discussing Pancreatic Cancer.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2023Article
- Article
- Quality and Content Analysis: Can YouTube Videos on Agoraphobia Be Considered a Reliable Source?Cureus · 2023Article
- Article
- Radionuclide Therapy Videos on YouTube as An Educational Material: Has the COVID-19 Pandemic Changed the Quality, Usefulness, and Interaction Features.Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023Article
- Assessment of quality, absorbability, and educational value of YouTube videos regarding ankle fractures.Journal of orthopaedics · 2023Article
- 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
- Article
- YouTube as a Source of Information on Pilonidal Sinus Disease: A Reliability and Quality Analysis.Cureus · 2023Article
- Analysis of YouTube videos as a source of information for myocarditis during the COVID-19 pandemic.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- Are YouTube Videos a Reliable Source for Obtaining Information About Colorectal Cancer Screening?Cureus · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the Reliability and Quality of YouTube Video Content about Perianal Fistulas.BioMed research international · 2022Article
- YouTube videos as a source of information concerning Behçet's disease: a reliability and quality analysis.Rheumatology international · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn our study, we aim to evaluate in terms of patients the quality and reliability of the most relevant and most-watched videos uploaded on YouTube about pancreatic cancer.
methodBefore starting the study, YouTube
resultsAmong the 50 videos analysed, 19 videos were uploaded by hospital channels, 17 videos by health channels, seven videos by patients, four videos by blog channels, and three videos by doctors. The mean GQS score of the first researcher was 3.24 ± 0.99 and the mean GQS score of the second researcher was 3.18 ± 0.88 with a significantly high agreement between them (r= 0.628). The mean DISCERN score of the first researcher was 3.48 ± 0.77 and the mean DISCERN score of the second researcher was 3.46 ± 1.09 with a significantly high agreement between them (r= 0.814).
conclusionIn our study, the majority of the videos were found to be of moderate quality. Healthcare professionals should be encouraged to upload more videos with useful content. However, we think that the uploaded videos should definitely go through a professional peer-review process before they are published.
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.