ArticleCureus2021
Quality and Reliability of YouTube Videos on Surgical Treatment of Uterine Leiomyomas.
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative analysis of bias and quality in YouTube videos on bariatric surgery and weight-loss medications.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- A quality assessment of youtube videos for the inclusion of the 10 critical steps of hiatal hernia repair and anti-reflux surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- A comprehensive quality and reliability assessment of SMILE (small incision lenticule extraction) laser surgery videos on youtube.International ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Article
- Laparoscopic myomectomy videos on WebSurg and YouTube: does peer review process make a difference?Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association · 2024Article
- Evaluating the performance of ChatGPT in answering questions related to urolithiasis.International urology and nephrology · 2024Article
- Hysteroscopy in the new media: quality and reliability analysis of hysteroscopy procedures on YouTube™.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2023Article
- Article
- Quality and Reliability of YouTube Videos on Myocardial Infarction: A Cross-Sectional Study.Cureus · 2023Article
- Quality and Reliability Analysis of YouTube Videos on Magnetic Resonance Imaging Claustrophobia.Cureus · 2023Article
- Assessment of Video Quality and Reliability of YouTube Videos Regarding Meniscus Tear Rehabilitation.Cureus · 2023Article
- YouTube as a Source of Information on Pilonidal Sinus Disease: A Reliability and Quality Analysis.Cureus · 2023Article
- The Evaluation of YouTube™ English Videos' Quality About Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.Sisli Etfal Hastanesi tip bulteni · 2023Article
- Transvaginal natural orifice endoscopic surgery for myomectomy: Can it be a conventional surgery?Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- 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
Introduction To determine the quality of English language YouTube videos on uterine leiomyomas (UL) and their surgical treatment. Methods The present study was performed from October 1 to October 8, 2021. A gynecologist with 10 years of experience searched for keywords on YouTube, including 'UL surgery', 'laparoscopic myomectomy,' 'myomectomy,' 'surgical treatments for UL,' and 'operations for UL.' Videos were categorized into three groups according to content as informative videos, personal experience videos, and news update videos. All videos characteristics, including the number of views, the length and duration of the video, number of 'likes,' 'dislikes,' and 'comments,' were recorded. Medical information and content index (MICI) score, DISCERN score, and Global Quality Score (GQS) were calculated for each video. Results In total, 54 videos were categorized as informative videos, 46 videos were classified as patient experience videos, and 37 videos were accepted as news agency videos. The mean comment numbers were 105.6 for patient experience videos, and the difference was statistically different in favor of patient experience videos (p= 0.001). The GQS and DISCERN scores were significantly higher for the informative group in comparison with the other two groups (p=0.001 and p=0.001 for both groups). Clinical symptoms and treatment outcomes were the most frequently mentioned content in informative videos (81.8% and 97.1%). The mean MICI score was 2.7. Conclusion The present study demonstrated that YouTube videos about UL and its surgical treatments have low quality and utility. However, informative videos that are mostly uploaded by professional health providers have significantly better DISCERN and GQS scores.
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.