ArticleCureus2023
Are YouTube Videos on the Treatment of Macular Holes Useful for Patients?
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective In this study, we aimed to assess the effectiveness and quality of the YouTube videos for patients regarding the treatment of macular holes. Materials and methods The quality and effectiveness of the videos on macular hole treatment on YouTube were evaluated using the DISCERN, global quality score (GQS), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), and usefulness index scoring systems. Results The median DISCERN score of 100 videos included in the study was 18 (range: 15-73), the median JAMA score was 3 (range: 0-4), the median global quality score was 1 (range: 1-5), and the median usefulness index score was 1 (range: 0-5). The JAMA scores of the videos uploaded by non-clinicians were found to be significantly lower than those of the videos uploaded by clinicians (p<0.001). However, the daily viewing rate and the number of comments and likes for the videos uploaded by non-clinicians were found to be significantly higher than those for the videos uploaded by clinicians (p<0.003). Conclusion Based on our findings, while all of the beneficial macular hole videos on YouTube were published by clinicians, the majority of them are not really helpful to patients.
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.