ArticleCureus2023
Assessment of Video Quality and Reliability of YouTube Videos Regarding Meniscus Tear Rehabilitation.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality and Reliability Analysis of YouTube as a Source of Patient Information on de Quervain's Tenosynovitis.Journal of wrist surgery · 2025Article
- Information quality assessment and content analysis of dementia prevention on WeChat: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Douyin and Bilibili as sources of information on lung cancer in China through assessment and analysis of the content and quality.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Quality and Reliability Analysis of YouTube as a Source for Patient Education on Dupuytren's Contracture.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2024Article
- Evaluating the quality and reliability of YouTube videos on scabies in children: A cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2024Article
- A content analysis of YouTube videos on tinnitus in South Korea.Scientific reports · 2023Review
- Bilibili and TikTok as sources of medical information on osteonecrosis of the femoral head: A cross-platform content analysis.Digital healthArticle
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
introductionYouTube is an open-source platform where creators can record and upload videos for others to see. As the popularity of YouTube increases, it is being increasingly used for healthcare-related information. However, with the relative ease of uploading videos, the content quality of individual videos is not regulated. This study aimed to assess and analyze the content quality of YouTube videos concerning meniscus tear rehabilitation. We hypothesized that most videos would be of low quality.
methodsThe keywords "meniscus tear treatment," "meniscus tear recovery," "meniscus tear physical therapy," and "meniscus tear rehabilitation" were used for searching videos on YouTube. A total of 50 videos was analyzed in this study that related to meniscal rehabilitation, grouped into one of four categories: non-physician professionals (physical therapists and chiropractors) (n=28), physicians (with or without academic affiliation) (n=5), non-academic healthcare-related websites (n=10), and non-professional individuals (n=7). Videos were then assessed by two independent authors using three scoring systems, which included the Global Quality Scale (GQS), modified DISCERN, and Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) scores. The number of likes, comments, video length, and views were collected for each video. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare quality scores and video analytics.
resultsThe overall median GQS, modified DISCERN, and JAMA scores were 3 (interquartile range (IQR): 2-3), 2 (IQR: 2-2), and 2 (IQR: 2-2), respectively. Sorted by GQS scores, 20 videos were of low quality (40%), 21 were intermediate (42%), and nine were of high quality (18%). Non-physician professionals produced 56% (28 of 50) of the videos assessed, with physical therapists constituting 86% (24 of 28) of this category. The median duration of each video was 6:54 (IQR: 3:59-10:50) minutes, views was 42,262 (IQR: 12,373-306,491), and likes was 877 (IQR: 239-4,850). Kruskal-Wallis testing showed a significant difference between JAMA scores, likes, and video length duration between video categories (p<0.028).
conclusionThe overall median reliability of YouTube videos on meniscus tear rehabilitation measured by JAMA and modified DISCERN scores was low. The overall median video quality, as assessed by GQS scores, was intermediate. Video quality was highly variable, with fewer than 20% meeting high-quality standards. As a result, patients are often viewing lower quality videos when researching their condition online.
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.