ArticleBJUI compass2023
Accuracy of prostate cancer screening recommendations for high-risk populations on YouTube and TikTok.
Article in BJUI compass, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association of online health information exposure with disease awareness initial symptom severity in benign prostatic hyperplasia: a cross-sectional study.The Canadian journal of urology · 2026Article
- Evaluating Quality, Guideline Accuracy, and Racial/Ethnic Representation of YouTube Videos on Colon Cancer Screening.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Article
- The quality and scope of health information on online drug platforms: a topic modelling and expert evaluation study of a Polish-language forum.Harm reduction journal · 2026Article
- YouTube and TikTok as patient resources: assessment of online video content on extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.Central European journal of urology · 2026Article
- ChatGPT can help guide and empower patients after prostate cancer diagnosis.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2025Article
- #GenderAffirmingHormoneTherapy and Health Information on TikTok: Thematic Content Analysis.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- Evaluating the role of AI chatbots in patient education for abdominal aortic aneurysms: a comparison of ChatGPT and conventional resources.ANZ journal of surgery · 2025Article
- Can ChatGPT provide high-quality patient information on male lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostate enlargement?Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2025Article
- Sentiment analysis of cancer screening in Chinese social media: Qualitative studies based on machine learning.PloS one · 2025Article
- Selling Misleading "Cancer Cure" Books on Amazon: Systematic Search on Amazon.com and Thematic Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- The Lancet Commission on prostate cancer: planning for the surge in cases.Lancet (London, England) · 2024Review
- Cancer: A model topic for misinformation researchers.Current opinion in psychology · 2024Review
- Rebuttal Letter to "The efficacy and reliability of English YouTube videos as a source of information for pregnant rheumatoid arthritis patients".Clinical rheumatology · 2024Article
- Letter to the Editor on "The efficacy and reliability of English YouTube videos as a source of information for pregnant rheumatoid arthritis patients".Clinical rheumatology · 2024Article
- A content analysis of YouTube videos on palliative care: understanding the quality and availability of online resources.Palliative care and social practice · 2024Article
- Patient Perspectives on Kidney Stone Surgery: A Content Analysis of Instagram Posts by Patients Versus Surgeons.European urology open science · 2023Article
- Female urinary incontinence on TikTok and YouTube: is online video content sufficient?International urogynecology journal · 2023Article
- Male awareness of prostate cancer risk remains poor in relatives of women with germline variants in DNA-repair genes.BJUI compass · 2023Article
- TikTok and #OccupationalTherapy: Cross-sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Accuracy of prostate cancer screening recommendations for high-risk populations on YouTube and TikTok.BJUI compass · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate content quality and racial/ethnic representation, particularly of high-risk cohorts, of prostate cancer screening videos on YouTube (YT) and TikTok (TK). Materials and Methods: The top 50 videos populated for the search term 'prostate cancer screening' on YT and TK that met inclusion criteria were retrieved in a cache-cleared browser. Three reviewers analysed all videos using validated criteria for the quality of consumer health information (DISCERN and Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool [PEMAT]). High quality was defined as follows: DISCERN ≥ 4, PEMAT understandability ≥75% and PEMAT actionability ≥75%. A 5-point Likert scale was used to demonstrate the level of misinformation compared to American Urological Association and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Perceived race and ethnicity of people in the videos were assessed by consensus approach. Results: TK videos were shorter (median 3.7 vs. 0.5 min, Conclusions: YT and TK videos about prostate cancer screening are widely viewed but do not provide quality consumer health information. Black and Hispanic men remain under-represented on both platforms, and high-risk racial groups were not discussed in most videos despite the importance for screening criteria. The low understandability and actionability, significant misinformation and lack of diversity in online videos support the need for higher quality videos with adequate attention to high-risk ethnic cohorts.
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.