ArticleBioMed research international2022
Evaluation of the Reliability and Quality of YouTube Video Content about Perianal Fistulas.
Article in BioMed research international, 2022. 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.
- Comparative analysis of early and late recurrence rates in perianal fistula surgery.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2026Article
- Investigating the Readability and Quality of AI Systems to Trending Questions About Food Poisoning.Journal of food science · 2026Article
- Assessing the quality and reliability of youtube information on hypertension: a comprehensive analysis.Journal of human hypertension · 2025Observational
- Migraine Information on the Web for Patients: A YouTube Content Analysis Based on a Scoring System.Cureus · 2023Article
- Article
- Diabetes Mellitus on YouTube: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study to Assess the Quality and Reliability of Videos.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
Objective: Perianal fistulas of the perianal soft tissues are an important cause of morbidity and a significant portion of colorectal surgery. To our knowledge, there is no study evaluating YouTube videos pertaining perianal fistulas. In this study, we aimed to evaluate YouTube video contents on this topic. Methods: Whether the videos contained real images, animations or presentations, video duration, number of views, comments and likes, uploading date, and daily view were recorded. Reliability of the videos was assessed using the Quality Criteria for Consumer Health Information (DISCERN) scale and quality of the videos using the Global Quality Score (GQS). Results: A total of 100 YouTube videos regarding perianal fistulas were included in the study. Sixty-four (64%) videos were uploaded by healthcare professionals and 36 (36%) videos by nonprofessionals. The mean video length was calculated as 6.70 ± 8.00 minutes for all videos. The mean DISCERN score of all videos was found as 3.92 ± 0.81 and the mean GQS score as 3.97 ± 0.83. According to the DISCERN score, most videos included (94%) were of good quality. There was an excellent agreement between the two surgeons in terms of the DISCERN and GQS scores. Conclusion: Most of the videos included in the study were uploaded by health-care professionals. On the other hand, the majority of the videos contained surgical management of perianal fistulas as it is the definitive treatment. Healthcare related content should be audited and filtered by YouTube with new and effective policies.
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.