ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2021
Assessing the Quality and Credibility of Publicly Available Videos on Cervical Fusion: Is YouTube a Reliable Educational Tool?
Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Implementation of Social Media in Neurosurgery: A Systematic Review of the Literature.Acta neurochirurgica · 2025Pooled it
- Machine learning prediction models for the popularization and dissemination of medical science popularization videos.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- YouTube Videos on Lateral Epicondylitis Often Lack High-Quality, Reliable Information.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Article
- Quality Assessment of YouTube Videos As Information Source for Breast Self-Examination.Cureus · 2024Article
- Source-Dependent Quality Variation in Shoulder Dislocation Videos on YouTube.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- YouTube Is a Poor-Quality Source for Patient Information Regarding Patellar Dislocations.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Evaluation of quality of diabetic foot examination on YouTube.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2023Article
- 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundYouTube has become a popular source for patient education, though there are concerns regarding the quality and reliability of videos related to orthopaedic and neurosurgical procedures. This study aims to evaluate the credibility and educational content of videos on YouTube related to cervical fusion. Secondarily, the study aims to identify factors predictive of higher or lower quality videos.
methodsA YouTube query using the search terms "cervical fusion" was performed, and the first 50 videos were included for analysis. Reliability was assessed using the
resultsTotal number of views was 6 221 816 with a mean of 124 436.32 ± 412 883.32 views per video. Physicians, academic, and medical sources had significantly higher mean
conclusionsWhile videos related to cervical fusion amassed a large viewership, they were poor in both quality and reliability. Videos by physicians were associated with higher reliability scores relative to other sources, whereas commercial sources and advertisements had significantly lower reliability and educational content scores. Currently, YouTube seems to be an unreliable source of information on cervical fusion for patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results of this study aid surgeons in counseling patients interested in cervical fusion, and suggest that publicly available videos regarding cervical fusion may not be an adequate tool for patient education at this time.
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.