SynthesisBMC medical education2022
Is YouTube a reliable source of health-related information? A systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 183 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
183 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Online information on bowel resection for Crohn's disease.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2026Pooled it
- Physical Activity Misinformation on Social Media: Systematic Review.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluating the quality of osteonecrosis and avascular necrosis content on youtube: a multidimensional analysis using DISCERN, JAMA, and GQS tools.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Pooled it
- Tools/instruments for assessing YouTube videos on surgical procedures for patient/consumer health education: a systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Effects of YouTube Health Videos on Mental Health Literacy in Adolescents and Teachers: Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR mental health · 2025Trial
- Exploring Conversational Dynamics in Scientific and Pseudoscientific Health Communities on YouTube: Process Mining and Network Analysis Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- YouTube Videos as Educational Resources for Seizure Clusters and Treatment Options: Cross-Sectional Observational Study.JMIR infodemiology · 2026Observational
- YouTube, TikTok, and Bilibili as sources of medical information on lumbar spinal stenosis: A cross-sectional content analysis study.Medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluating the reliability and quality of lupus nephritis educational content on TikTok and Bilibili: a cross-sectional content analysis.Lupus science & medicine · 2026Article
- Study of Human Papillomavirus Vaccine-Related Social Media Content Across Eight Social Media Platforms: Scoping Review of Communication Content, Information Sources, and Analytical Approaches.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Quality, Reliability, and Viewer Engagement of YouTube Videos on Esophageal Cancer: A Cross-Sectional Study.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Educational value assessment of YouTube surgical videos of bladder hydrodistention for surgeons.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Article
- Quality, reliability, and clinical accuracy of short-form social media videos on cow's milk protein allergy: a cross-platform content analysis.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Content quality and reliability of mental health videos for cancer patients on social media platforms: a cross-sectional study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Quality assessment of ADHD-related short videos on Chinese social media: A cross-sectional study.Medicine · 2026Article
- YouTube as a Reliable Source of Patient Education for Peyronie's Disease: A Quality Assessment Study.Cureus · 2026Article
- Content quality and reliability of YouTube exercise videos for Parkinson's disease.Acta neurologica Belgica · 2026Article
- Dental implant complications on YouTube™: an evaluation of video informativeness.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Educational quality and viewer engagement of Youtube videos on ceramic implants: a cross-sectional study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- 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
123 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
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
backgroundYouTube is a valuable source of health-related educational material which can have a profound impact on people's behaviors and decisions. However, YouTube contains a wide variety of unverified content that may promote unhealthy behaviors and activities. We aim in this systematic review to provide insight into the published literature concerning the quality of health information and educational videos found on YouTube.
methodsWe searched Google Scholar, Medline (through PubMed), EMBASE, Scopus, Direct Science, Web of Science, and ProQuest databases to find all papers on the analysis of medical and health-related content published in English up to August 2020. Based on eligibility criteria, 202 papers were included in our study. We reviewed every article and extracted relevant data such as the number of videos and assessors, the number and type of quality categories, and the recommendations made by the authors. The extracted data from the papers were aggregated using different methods to compile the results.
resultsThe total number of videos assessed in the selected articles is 22,300 (median = 94, interquartile range = 50.5-133). The videos were evaluated by one or multiple assessors (median = 2, interquartile range = 1-3). The video quality was assessed by scoring, categorization, or based on creators' bias. Researchers commonly employed scoring systems that are either standardized (e.g., GQS, DISCERN, and JAMA) or based upon the guidelines and recommendations of professional associations. Results from the aggregation of scoring or categorization data indicate that health-related content on YouTube is of average to below-average quality. The compiled results from bias-based classification show that only 32% of the videos appear neutral toward the health content. Furthermore, the majority of the studies confirmed either negative or no correlation between the quality and popularity of the assessed videos.
conclusionsYouTube is not a reliable source of medical and health-related information. YouTube's popularity-driven metrics such as the number of views and likes should not be considered quality indicators. YouTube should improve its ranking and recommender system to promote higher-quality content. One way is to consider expert reviews of medical and health-related videos and to include their assessment data in the ranking algorithm.
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.