ArticleJournal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine2023
Examining understandability, information quality, and presence of misinformation in popular YouTube videos on sleep compared to expert-led videos.
Article in Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Network Influence vs. Credibility in YouTube Sleep-Health Communication.Public health challenges · 2026Article
- Gonarthrosis Advisor vs ChatGPT-5: quality and readability of artificial intelligence-generated patient education for knee osteoarthritis.Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica · 2026Article
- Bilibili and TikTok as sources of information on atrophic gastritis and the quality of their content.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Popularity versus quality in TikTok educational videos on congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- User Experiences and Effects of Expert-Led YouTube Mind-Body Interventions on Insomniacs: A Survey Study.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Article
- The Complex Interaction Between Sleep-Related Information, Misinformation, and Sleep Health: Call for Comprehensive Research on Sleep Infodemiology and Infoveillance.JMIR infodemiology · 2024Article
- Assessing the Accuracy of Generative Conversational Artificial Intelligence in Debunking Sleep Health Myths: Mixed Methods Comparative Study With Expert Analysis.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Internet is a common source of sleep information but may be subject to commercial bias and misinformation. We compared the understandability, information quality, and presence of misinformation of popular YouTube videos on sleep to videos with credible experts. We identified the most popular YouTube videos on sleep/insomnia and 5 videos from experts. Videos were assessed for understanding and clarity using validated instruments. Misinformation and commercial bias were identified by consensus of sleep medicine experts. The most popular videos received, on average, 8.2 (± 2.2) million views; the expert-led videos received, on average, 0.3 (± 0.2) million views. Commercial bias was identified in 66.7% of popular videos and 0% of expert videos ( CITATION: Robbins R, Epstein LJ, Iyer JM, et al. Examining understandability, information quality, and presence of misinformation in popular YouTube videos on sleep compared to expert-led videos.
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.