ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2023
Evaluating YouTube videos on sialendoscopy as an educational resource for patients.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2023. 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.
- Assessment of the quality of endoscopic tympanoplasty and endoscopic myringoplasty videos on YouTube.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Evaluating the quality and reliability of youtube videos on tympanostomy tubes: a comprehensive analysis for patients and parents.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Article
- The new checklist to evaluate educational value of YouTube surgical videos of transurethral resection of the prostate.Translational andrology and urology · 2023Article
- Evaluating ChatGPT responses on obstructive sleep apnea for patient education.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2023Article
- Evaluating YouTube videos on sialendoscopy as an educational resource for patients.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Patients are increasingly relying on YouTube for health information. We objectively evaluated the quality and comprehensiveness of sialendoscopy YouTube videos available to patients. We further investigated the relationship between video content and video popularity. Methods: We identified 150 videos using the search term "sialendoscopy." Videos were excluded if they were lectures for medical professionals, operating room (OR) recordings, unrelated, non-English, or non-audio. Video quality and comprehensiveness were evaluated using modified DISCERN criterion (range: 5-25) and novel sialendoscopy criterion (NSC, range: 0-7), respectively. Secondary outcomes included standard video metrics and Video Power Index to measure popularity. Videos were classified binarily by uploader type as from an academic medical center or from other sources. Results: Twenty-two (14.7%) of 150 videos were included for review, with 7 (31.8%) uploaded from academic medical institutions. One hundred-nine (72.7%) videos were excluded as lectures for medical professionals or OR recordings. Overall mean modified DISCERN (13.45 ± 3.42) and NSC (3.05 ± 0.96) scores were low; however, videos uploaded by academic medical institutions were significantly more comprehensive (NSC mean difference = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.16-1.80, Conclusions: This study highlights the paucity and low quality of sialendoscopy videos for patients. More popular videos are not higher quality, and most videos are targeted more toward physicians rather than patients. As YouTube becomes increasingly used by patients, there is opportunity for otolaryngologists to produce more informative videos for patients while implementing targeted strategies to increase viewership. Level of Evidence: NA.
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.