ArticleCureus2021
Evaluation of Scientific Quality of YouTube Video Content Related to Umbilical Hernia.
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Short-form video platforms as a source of ankylosing spondylitis information: a cross-sectional content analysis.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Fake News? Quantifying the Prevalence of Misinformation Related to Scoliosis on the TikTok Social Media Platform.Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America · 2025Article
- Evaluating YouTube Videos With Prophylactic Mastectomy Content in Terms of Their Quality and Reliability.The breast journal · 2025Article
- Assessing the Quality and Reliability of AI-Generated Responses to Common Hypertension Queries.Cureus · 2024Article
- Reliability of YouTube videos on the management of orthodontic emergencies during COVID-19 pandemic: A quantitative and qualitative analysis.Journal of orthodontic science · 2024Article
- Assessment of Lung Cancer YouTube Videos for Patient Education.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2023Article
- Surgeon volumes: preserving appropriate surgical outcomes in higher-risk patient populations undergoing abdominal wall reconstruction.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Assessment of quality, absorbability, and educational value of YouTube videos regarding ankle fractures.Journal of orthopaedics · 2023Article
- Assessment of Video Quality and Reliability of YouTube Videos Regarding Meniscus Tear Rehabilitation.Cureus · 2023Article
- Evaluation of scientific quality of YouTube video content related to orthodontic pain management.Dental press journal of orthodontics · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
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
objectivePatients with umbilical hernias frequently refer to the YouTube videos to learn and perhaps apply traditional treatment methods. It is very difficult for these users to distinguish these videos as useful or harmful. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the scientific quality of YouTube video content on umbilical hernia.
methodsA total of 50 videos on YouTube pertaining to umbilical hernia were included in the study. All videos were evaluated by two experienced general surgeons. The uploader, video content, length, upload date, time since upload, number of views, numbers of comments, likes, and dislikes and Video Power Index (VPI) rates videos were recorded and evaluated. The videos were scored using the Quality Criteria for Consumer Health Information (DISCERN) and Global Quality Scale (GQS).
resultsA total of 9,836 comments were made to the videos, 118,478 likes were made, and 15,009 dislikes were made. The mean DISCERN score given to the videos by the researchers was 2.57 ± 1.82 (min-max: 1-5) and the average GQS score was 2.62 ± 1.86. A statistically significant difference was found in terms of both DISCERN and GQS scores of videos uploaded by doctors compared to videos uploaded by nondoctors (p < 0.001). A statistically significant level of good agreement was found among investigators in terms of both DISCERN (p < 0.001, r = 0.778) and GQS (p < 0.001, r = 0.807) scores. Conclusion: Videos with health content should definitely be uploaded by experts. Studies investigating the scientific quality of health videos uploaded on YouTube and similar platforms should be carried out continuously.
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.