ArticleInternational ophthalmology2023
Evaluating the quality, utility, and reliability of the information in uveitis videos shared on YouTube.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient vs. physician narratives on refractive surgery in Turkish YouTube videos: a comparative reflexive thematic analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Evaluating the quality and reliability of YouTube videos on myopia: a video content analysis.International ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Show don't tell: assessing the impact of co-developed patient information videos in paediatric uveitis.Eye (London, England) · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the Reliability and Quality of YouTube Videos on Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction.Cureus · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to analyze the quality of videos on YouTube as educational resources about uveitis.
methodsAn online YouTube search was performed using the keyword "uveitis". Total view counts, duration of videos, publishing dates, likes and dislikes, numbers of comments, and source of videos were recorded. The quality and accuracy of the video's educational content were evaluated using the DISCERN score, Global Quality Score (GQS), and Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) score. Video power index (VPI) was used to evaluate both the view and the like ratio of the videos. All videos were classified according to publishers and types of categories.
resultsFrom among the 200 videos analyzed, 94 were included. The mean DISCERN score was 38.5 ± 13.2 (poor), the mean JAMA score was 1.8 ± 0.6 (fair), and the GQS was 2.5 ± 0.9 (fair). There were positive correlations between the three checklists (p < .001). VPI was not correlated with each score (p > .05). The most common upload sources were ophthalmologists (24.4%) and YouTube channels about health (20.2%). Regarding content, we identified 47 (50%) medical education, 26 (27.6%) patient education, 16 (17%) patient experience, and five (5.3%) surgical procedure videos involving patients with uveitis. While the most popular videos were uploaded by doctors other than ophthalmologists, the videos uploaded by academic institutions and associations of healthcare professional were found to have higher educational quality and reliability scores.
conclusionsUveitis videos on YouTube are of poor quality and reliability and are not adequately educational for patients. Therefore, physicians must be aware of the limitations of YouTube and ensure the flow of correct medical information to patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35945414What 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.