ArticleCureus2023
Quality of YouTube Videos Related to Colorectal Cancer Screening.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- YouTube videos on nutrition and pediatric cancer: scientific reliability and quality.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Article
- A Double-Edged Sword: Quality and Credibility of Colon Cancer Screening Content on YouTube.Cureus · 2024Article
- Users' experience with health-related content on YouTube: an exploratory study.BMC public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction YouTube, an unregulated video-sharing website, is the second most visited website on the internet. As more patients turn to the internet for information about colon cancer screening, it is important to understand what they are consuming online. Our goal was to evaluate YouTube videos about colon cancer screening to better understand the information patients are accessing. Methods We searched YouTube on October 28, 2020, using the following search terms sorted by relevance and view count: colonoscopy, colon cancer screening, virtual colonoscopy, colonoscopy alternatives, and cologuard. Videos longer than 10 minutes, not in English, and duplicates were excluded. Three evaluators graded each video using the DISCERN criteria. Numerical data were averaged into a composite score. Two-sided t-tests and one-way ANOVA tests were used to compare mean ratings between groups. Results Fifty videos were analyzed, with a total of 23,148,938 views, averaging 462,979 views per video. The average overall rating was 3.16/5. There was no difference between search methods, search terms, or presence of a physician. The average ratings for videos with gastroenterologists (3.08), other physicians (3.35), and non-physicians (3.09) were not significantly different. Videos without physicians had more views on average (1,148,677) compared to videos with gastroenterologists (157,846, p=0.013) or other physicians (35,730, p=0.013). Conclusion YouTube videos related to colon cancer screening were of good quality regardless of search terms, search methods, or presence of a physician. However, videos without physicians were viewed more frequently. Physicians should continue making videos that address deficits while increasing viewership.
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.