ArticlePloS one2021
Evaluation of YouTube videos for patients' education on periradicular surgery.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preferred Social Media Platform for Rehabilitation Education Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.Cureus · 2026Article
- Educational quality of ocular and orbital anatomy videos on YouTube: a student- and patient-centered evaluation.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Evaluating the quality and educational utility of YouTube videos in teaching human surface anatomy.Anatomical sciences education · 2026Article
- Platform-mediated patient access to apical surgery information on Chinese short-video platforms: a cross-sectional study of clinical accuracy, transparency, and misinformation risk.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Article
- Reducing positioning errors in panoramic radiographs: Impact of an educational video on tongue positioning.Imaging science in dentistry · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in dentistry: Assessing the informational quality of YouTube videos.PloS one · 2025Article
- Dacryocystorhinostomy videos on YouTube as a source of patient education.International ophthalmology · 2024Article
- YouTube as a source of information about rubber dam: quality and content analysis.Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2024Article
- The new checklist to evaluate educational value of YouTube surgical videos of transurethral resection of the prostate.Translational andrology and urology · 2023Article
- Quality and Reliability Analysis of YouTube Videos on Magnetic Resonance Imaging Claustrophobia.Cureus · 2023Article
- Article
- Assessment of the educational value of endodontic access cavity preparation YouTube video as a learning resource for students.PloS one · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the content of periradicular surgery-related YouTube videos available for patients' education. YouTube search was made for videos related to periradicular surgery using specific terms. After exclusions, 42 videos were selected, viewed and assessed by two independent observers. The videos were assessed in terms of duration, days since upload, country of upload, number of views, likes and dislikes, authorship source, viewing rate and interaction index. To grade the content of videos about periradicular surgery, a usefulness score was created with 10 elements based mainly on the American Association of Endodontists guidelines. Each element was given a score of 0 or 1. SPSS software (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, USA) was used to analyze data at a 95% confidence level. An inter-evaluator reliability analysis for the scoring system was performed using the Kappa statistic. The videos received an average of 35103.9 views (range: 9-652378) with an average duration of 338.71 seconds (range: 42-2081), respectively. Most videos were provided by individuals (57%). Half of the videos were posted by authors from the United States. The inter-evaluator reliability for usefulness scoring was 94.5%. No video covered the 10 scoring elements completely, presenting very low usefulness scores (mean: 3.2; range: 1-7). The most discussed elements were supporting media (100%) and steps of the procedure (90.5%) followed by indications and contraindications (45.2%) and symptoms (31%). None of the included videos discussed the procedure's cost or prognosis. In terms of usefulness score, no significant difference was detected between different sources of upload (chi-square test, P > 0.05). Information on periradicular surgery in YouTube videos is not comprehensive and patients should not rely on YouTube as the only source of information. Dental professionals should enrich the content of YouTube with good quality videos by providing full and evidence-based information that will positively affect patients' attitudes and satisfaction.
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.