ArticleInternational ophthalmology2023
Educational quality and content of YouTube videos on diabetic macular edema.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the quality and usefulness of smoking cessation related short videos on TikTok and Bilibili: a content analysis study in China.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Assessment of the quality, content, and reliability of YouTube® videos on diabetes mellitus and polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review with cross-sectional analysis comparing peer-reviewed videos.Endocrine connections · 2024Article
- Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS): A Cross-Sectional Observational Study Analyzing the Quality of Content on YouTube.Cureus · 2023Article
- HbA1c AND E-HEALTH: YOUTUBE MIGHT BE GOOD FOR YOU, IF YOU USE IT WISELY.Acta endocrinologica (Bucharest, Romania : 2005)Article
- Article
- Medical Accuracy of Reddit in Patient Discussions of Prospective Ocular Stem Cell Therapies for Retinal Degenerative Diseases.Journal of vitreoretinal diseasesArticle
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
purposeDiabetic macular edema (DME) is a vision-threatening complication of diabetes mellitus due to increased vascular permeability. Patients are increasingly using YouTube videos to educate themselves about DME. This study analyzes the content and quality of YouTube videos about DME.
methodsVideos were searched in December 2021 for "diabetic macular edema." The first 100 videos sorted by both relevance and view count were reviewed (n = 200). Quantitative metrics and content were collected. Two reviewers assessed videos using the JAMA (0-4), modified DISCERN (1-5), and Global Quality Scale (GQS, 1-5). Videos were sorted into author groups: 1 (academic institutions/organizations), 2 (private practices/organizations), and 3 (independent users; ophthalmologist users noted). Statistical analyses were deemed significant at a = 0.05.
resultsOne hundred four videos were included after applying exclusion criteria. Overall mean + standard deviations were 2.25 ± 0.83 (JAMA), 3.47 ± 0.55 (DISCERN), and 3.95 ± 0.95 (GQS). 51.9% of videos stated a definition, 32.7% mentioned screening, and 50% mentioned any DME risk factor. Healthcare professional-targeted videos had higher JAMA and DISCERN scores than patient-targeted videos (p < 0.05). Videos using ophthalmologists had higher JAMA and DISCERN scores than those lacking their presence (p < 0.05). JAMA scores significantly varied between author groups; within group 3, ophthalmologist-authored videos had higher DISCERN scores (p < 0.05).
conclusionVideos without ophthalmologists or targeted toward patients had poor quality and content coverage. The rising prevalence of diabetes, coupled with increased internet use for acquiring medical information, creates a strong need for high-quality information about DME.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36057009What 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.