ArticleCureus2022
Are YouTube Videos a Reliable Source for Obtaining Information About Colorectal Cancer Screening?
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Quality of Cancer-Related Information on New Media (2014-2023): Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to assess the content, quality, and reliability of YouTube videos on colorectal cancer screening. Colorectal cancer is the third most common cause of death worldwide.
methodsA basic search was conducted on the YouTube
resultsOf the 137 videos included in the study, 74 (54%) were categorized in the useful information group and 63 (46%) in the misleading information group. It was found that most (47.3%) of the videos in the useful information group were uploaded by academic-based sources. Conversely, most (46%) of the videos in the misleading information group were uploaded by for-profit companies, private hospitals, and medical advertisements. An analysis of the video features according to the upload source revealed that the total views (p=0.023), likes (p=0.004), and viewer engagement with the video (p=0.026) were higher in the public spotlight videos group. Conclusionsː The quality of public spotlight videos with high viewing rates and audience interaction should be increased to inform the public. In addition, there is a need for videos containing comprehensive and accurate information to be uploaded to YouTube, which is an important source of information today, by universities, health organizations, and doctors who do not make a profit (financially) from the results.
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.