Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36759401›Full record

ArticleClinical rheumatology2023

Assessment of quality and reliability of YouTube videos for patient and physician education on inflammatory myositis.

Mrudula Joshi, Naveen R, Kshitij Jagtap, Ria Gupta, Vikas Agarwal, Rohit Aggarwal, Ashish Goel, Latika Gupta

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The grey zone of online rehabilitation.Clinical rheumatology · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

8 authors.

Mrudula JoshiByramjee Jeejeebhoy Government Medical College and Sassoon General Hospitals, Pune, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7312-351X
Naveen RDepartment of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2014-3925
Kshitij JagtapSeth Gordhandas Sunderdas Medical College and King Edward Memorial Hospital, Maharashtra, Mumbai, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2729-737X
Ria GuptaByramjee Jeejeebhoy Government Medical College and Sassoon General Hospitals, Pune, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3720-4520
Vikas AgarwalDepartment of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4508-1233
Rohit AggarwalDepartment of Medicine, Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7531-8038
Ashish GoelDepartment of Medicine, Dr BR Ambedkar State Institute of Medical Sciences, Mohali, Punjab, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8513-2624
Latika GuptaDepartment of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India. drlatikagupta@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2753-2990

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionYouTube is the second most popular search website worldwide to access health information online. This study was undertaken to assess the reliability and quality of information about myositis on YouTube and delineate attributes of useful videos using standard metrics.

methodsWe conducted a thorough search on YouTube using 9 search terms related to myositis. The inclusion criteria were content related to myositis, English language and acceptable audio-video quality. Duplicates and advertisements were excluded from the analysis. Videos were classified as useful, not very useful or misleading and patient narratives. Reliability was determined using the mDISCERN criteria, quality using the Global Quality Scale (GQS) and JAMA system, using appropriate cut-offs (mDISCERN > 4, GQS > 4, JAMA > 3).

resultsOut of a total of 900 videos, 453 were included for the analysis. Seventy-four per cent and 2% provided useful and not very useful information respectively, while 24% were patient narratives. Seventy-one per cent were intended specifically for patients while 69% were for healthcare providers and students. Noteworthily, useful and not very useful videos had similar total views though the number of likes and daily viewership were higher for useful videos (p = 0.024, p = 0.046). Nearly half (47%) of useful videos were by professional medical societies/patient support groups (PSGs) while not very useful ones were by nonmedical media (38%). Physician-predicted usefulness was discordant with score-based usefulness (κ = 0.129). However, GQS emerged as a significant (p = 0.008) predictor of video usefulness in multivariate analysis.

conclusionA large majority of English YouTube videos on myositis provide useful information for patients. Physicians could signpost patients to high-quality useful videos as determined by GQS and sources like professional medical societies and PSGs. Key Points •This study highlights the importance of regulating health information posted online, accessed by millions of people, to gauge the quality of information and to identify and curb misinformation. •It also identifies recommendations for the future for uploading such content on the Internet. •The implications lie in our patients being better informed about their disease as they are important stakeholders in the healthcare decision-making process.

Indexed as

PhysiciansSocial MediaCommunicationHumansInformation DisseminationReproducibility of ResultsMisinformationMyositisPatientsSocial MediaYouTube

Identifiers

PMID36759401
PMCPMC9910767

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.