ArticleUrolithiasis2022
Quality and utility of YouTube videos about mPCNL.
Article in Urolithiasis, 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.
- Italian-translated EAU video for informed consent in PCNL: enhancing patient understanding and reducing anxiety: a prospective two-centre study.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- An assessment of the quality and readability level of online content on urinary tract infection treatment in Spanish and English.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Article
- Patient experiences and perceptions of kidney stone surgery: what lessons can be learned from TikTok?Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- Analyzing dissemination, quality, and reliability of Chinese brain tumor-related short videos on TikTok and Bilibili: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Article
- Quality and Reliability of Liver Cancer-Related Short Chinese Videos on TikTok and Bilibili: Cross-Sectional Content Analysis Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study assessed the reliability, efficacy, and quality of YouTube videos on miniaturized PCNL procedures using a scoring system. Video searches were conducted using the keywords miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL), ultra-mini-PCNL (UMP), and super-mini-PCNL (SMP) via https://www.youtube.com . All videos > 2 min in English containing the procedure of mPCNL were ordered and listed according to relevance and popularity. Global quality scores (GQS) and reliability scales were used for quality and content analysis of the videos. The confirmed video power index (VPI) was used to assess video popularity, and the mPCNL score, developed by three endourologists, was used to measure the informational and educational value of the videos. While specialists (61.9%) were the main source for uploading 63 videos included in the study, the largest target group was patients (61.9%). Operational procedures (68.3%) were the main content, and the highest upload region was Asian continent (66.7%). The majority of videos were in English (60.3%), focused on standard mPCNL rather than miniaturization subtypes (77.8%). The mean VPI, GQS, reliability, and mPCNL scores were 4.61, 2.86, 2.61, 9.58, respectively. These parameters, which were positively correlated, were found to be statistically significantly higher for videos of 'academic' origin, 'Physicians' target audience and 'English audio' language format (p < 0.05). Because mPCNL videos, which are popular and have high informational and educational value, are aimed at medical professionals rather than patients, they are not functional in treatment selection and explaining the procedure. By raising its standards, video portals can make the treatment process practical as a functional bridge between patients and health care professionals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36460829What 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.