ArticleCureus2023
Assessment of Reliability and Quality of Videos on Medial Epicondylitis Shared on YouTube.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed.
- Why People Conceal Mental Health Problems: Qualitative Analysis of TikTok Posts.Journal of medical Internet research · 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
- YouTube as a resource for Parkinson's disease exercise education: an evaluation of video quality and reliability.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Insufficient Quality of Mental Health Information on German-Speaking TikTok: A Content Analysis.Clinical psychology in Europe · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Social Media Short-Form Video Content for Patient Education on Vision-Threatening Diseases.Journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of large language models in generating and optimizing educational materials for neonatal home oxygen therapy.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Performance of large language models in reporting oral health concerns and side effects in head and neck cancer: a comparative study.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2025Article
- Quality and Reliability of Adolescent Sexuality Education on Chinese Video Platforms: Sentiment-Topic Analysis and Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Quality and Dissemination of Uterine Fibroid Health Information on TikTok and Bilibili: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Aspergillosis on YouTube: Assessment of Quality and Reliability of Uploaded Videos.Mycopathologia · 2025Article
- ChatGPT and Gemini for Patient Education: A Comparative Analysis of Common Pediatric Exanthematous Conditions.Cureus · 2025Article
- Article
- Professionalism vs. engagement: quality of SSc information on WeChat.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Article
- Mycetoma: A critical appraisal of educational content on YouTube.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2024Article
- Article
- Assessment of readability, reliability, and quality of ChatGPT®, BARD®, Gemini®, Copilot®, Perplexity® responses on palliative care.Medicine · 2024Observational
- Assessment of the Quality and Reliability of Content Available on YouTube About Palpitations.Cureus · 2024Article
- Quality and educational content of Douyin and TikTok short videos on early screening of rectal cancer.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Video-sharing websites, especially YouTube search engine, have become popular sources for obtaining health information over the years. The reliability and quality of contents on YouTube are unpredictable and questionable. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability and quality of videos on medial epicondylitis shared on the YouTube platform. Methods A YouTube search with the keywords "medial epicondylitis" and "golfer's elbow" was conducted. After typing each keyword, the first 50 videos that appeared in the first three pages were evaluated. The titles and duration of the videos, the uploading sources, the time passed since the upload, number of total views, likes, dislikes and comments were recorded. All videos were analyzed and scored using the DISCERN scoring system, modified DISCERN (mod-DISCERN) scale, and the Global Quality Score (GQS). Results Eighty-eight videos met the inclusion criteria and were included in the study. The mean DISCERN score, mod-DISCERN score and GQS were 40.68±10.5, 1.81±0.76, and 2.72±0.9, respectively. Most of the videos had poor and very poor quality content according to the DISCERN instrument, the mod-DISCERN scale and GQS tool. The main upload sources were doctors (36.4%), physiotherapists (25%), patients (2.2%), and other (36.4%). The videos uploaded by doctors had higher quality scores than other uploading sources. Of the 88 videos, 10 were about diagnosis alone, 39 were on treatment alone, and 39 contained information about both of diagnosis and treatment. The mean DISCERN score, mod-DISCERN score and GQS of the videos on "both" were significantly higher than those "diagnosis alone" and "treatment alone" groups. Conclusion Nearly 80% of YouTube videos on medial epicondylitis according to the DISCERN and GQS tool, and also 97.7% of videos according to the mod-DISCERN scale had medium or poor quality. YouTube videos on medial epicondylitis could not be considered as accurate and reliable sources. Because the videos uploaded by doctors had higher quality scores, the physicians should prepare and upload more reliable and quality contents with detailed 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.