ArticleJournal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry
Evaluation of YouTube Videos as a Source of Information About Oral Self-examination to Detect Oral Cancer and Precancerous Lesions.
Article in Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Content Gaps and Informational Quality of TikTok and Bilibili Videos on Pit and Fissure Sealing in China: A Cross-Sectional Study.Oral health & preventive dentistry · 2026Article
- Comparison of two different artificial intelligence chatbots that provide information to patients and parents about primary tooth pulpotomy treatments.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- YouTube and Bilibili as sources of information on oral cancer: cross-sectional content analysis study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Assessing the educational value of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy videos on YouTube®: A comparative analysis of short versus long videos.Journal of minimal access surgery · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in dentistry: Assessing the informational quality of YouTube videos.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate quality, reliability, and comprehensiveness of YouTube videos about oral self-examination to detect oral cancer and precancerous lesions and to assess whether the source, duration, quality, reliability, and/or comprehensiveness of videos influence their visibility and popularity. Materials and Methods: Videos on YouTube were searched using eight keywords similar to oral self-examination. The first 100 videos for each search term were included. Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were adhered to, and videos were assessed for quality, reliability, and comprehensiveness. Upload date, views, likes, dislikes, duration, and source of the videos were noted. Viewing rate and interaction index were calculated for each video. Results: A total of 800 videos were analyzed, 24 of which met the inclusion criteria. Majority of videos (87%) were uploaded by the healthcare group. The visibility, quality, reliability, and comprehensiveness were higher in videos uploaded by the healthcare group when compared with the non-healthcare group, but not at a level of statistical significance. The mean interaction index score of the non-healthcare group was found to be higher than the healthcare group, with statistically significant difference. Duration of videos showed an impact on the comprehensiveness of the videos. Conclusion: There are relatively few videos on oral self-examination on YouTube, and most do not have satisfactory quality, reliability, and comprehensiveness. There is a potential to increase public awareness about oral self-examination by utilizing this tool. Videos with complete and accurate information regarding oral self-examination must be uploaded to YouTube, which is currently an important source of information for the general public.
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.