Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37316753›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2023

Quality, Understandability and Reliability of YouTube Videos on Skin Cancer Screening.

Lydia Reinhardt, Theresa Steeb, Anika Mifka, Carola Berking, Friedegund Meier, German Skin Cancer Council

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Integrating social media into modern dermatology - a cross-sectional study.Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Lydia Reinhardt *Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Germany. lydia.reinhardt@ukdd.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6232-5132
Theresa Steeb *Department of Dermatology, Uniklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Anika MifkaDepartment of Dermatology, Uniklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Carola Berking *Department of Dermatology, Uniklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Friedegund Meier *Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Germany.
German Skin Cancer Council

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 2008, a nationwide skin cancer screening (SCS) program was implemented in Germany. However, participation rates remain low. YouTube videos on SCS might educate eligible persons to undergo SCS. Until now, no scientific evaluation of the quality of videos available for German-speaking persons eligible for SCS has been performed. Here, we identified and evaluated videos on SCS provided on YouTube. YouTube was searched in May 2022 for German terms related to SCS. Two authors evaluated the videos of the first three pages that met the predefined eligibility criteria. The quality of the videos´ information was evaluated using DISCERN and the Global Quality Scale (GQS). The understandability and actionability were assessed with the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). The reliability was assessed with the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) score. Subgroup differences were identified by the Kruskal-Wallis test. Overall, 38 videos were included in the evaluation. Most videos were provided by health professionals (clinics and practices). The average scores (mean (SD)) for the individual tools were as follows: DISCERN 3.1/5 points (± 0.52), GQS 3.72/5 points (± 0.7), understandability 64,27% (± 13.53%), actionability 58.22% (± 15.18%), JAMA 37.17% (± 18.94%). These results indicate a mediocre to good understandability, a mediocre quality and actionability, and a low reliability. Videos that were assessed as useful were of significantly better quality. An improvement of freely available informational videos on SCS, especially with regard to the reliability criteria, is urgently needed.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsSocial MediaEarly Detection of CancerGermanyHumansReproducibility of ResultsVideo RecordingHealth promotionInternetPatient informationQualityReliabilityShared decision-makingSkin cancerSkin cancer screeningVideos

Identifiers

PMID37316753
PMCPMC10509116

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.