Observational studyInternational journal of environmental research and public health2023
Realfood and Cancer: Analysis of the Reliability and Quality of YouTube Content.
Observational study in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Quality of Cancer-Related Information on New Media (2014-2023): Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Selling Misleading "Cancer Cure" Books on Amazon: Systematic Search on Amazon.com and Thematic Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Mapping automatic social media information disorder. The role of bots and AI in spreading misleading information in society.PloS one · 2024Article
- Development of an Assessment Tool for YouTube Videos With Medical Content: A Focus on Nutrition and Cancer.Integrative cancer therapiesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study analyzes the quality and reliability of videos related to nutrition and cancer on YouTube. STUDY
designAn observational, retrospective, cross-sectional, time-limited study analyzing activity on the social network YouTube was proposed.
methodsThe information from the videos was extracted through an API search tool, using the NodeXL software. The criteria to select the videos on YouTube were the keywords "real food", "realfood", and "cancer" and the hashtags #realfood and #cancer were present, videos in English and videos available on 1 December 2022.
resultsThe DISCERN value in the total number of videos viewed was 2.25 (±0.88) points, indicating low reliability. The videos uploaded by HRU represented only 20.8%. Videos suggesting that the use of foods defined as "real food" could cure cancer without the intervention of any other treatment accounted for 12.5%. Videos that provided external links to scientific/technical evidence verifying the information represented only 13.89% of the total number of videos. Of these videos, 70% corresponded to HRU. The DISCERN value for videos from HRU users was 3.05 (0.88), a value that reflects a good reliability of videos from these users.
conclusionsThis study provides information on the content and quality of the videos that we can find on YouTube. We found videos of non-health users who do not base their content on any scientific evidence, with the danger that this entails for the population, but it also highlights that the videos published by HRU have greater reliability and quality, being better perceived by the population, so it is important to encourage healthcare professionals and health institutions to share verified information on YouTube.
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.