Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35590410›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical education2022

Is YouTube a reliable source of health-related information? A systematic review.

Wael Osman, Fatma Mohamed, Mohamed Elhassan, Abdulhadi Shoufan

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
183citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

183 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Online information on bowel resection for Crohn's disease.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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 · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

123 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Wael OsmanDepartment of Biology, and Pre-Med Program, College of Arts and Sciences, Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi, UAE. wael.osman@ku.ac.ae.
Fatma MohamedCenter for Cyber-Physical Systems (C2PS), Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi, UAE.
Mohamed ElhassanSaint Agnes Medical Center, Fresno, CA, USA.
Abdulhadi ShoufanCenter for Cyber-Physical Systems (C2PS), Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi, UAE. abdulhadi.shoufan@ku.ac.ae.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Social MediaHealth EducationHumansInformation DisseminationReproducibility of ResultsVideo RecordingBiasHealth informationMedical videosQuality assessmentYouTube

Identifiers

PMID35590410
PMCPMC9117585

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.