ArticleBMJ open2023
Evaluation of the quality and reliability of anal cancer and its precancerous lesions-related content on YouTube: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the content and quality of deep vein thrombosis on Bilibili, TikTok, and YouTube: a cross-sectional study.Thrombosis journal · 2026Article
- YouTube as a resource for Parkinson's disease exercise education: an evaluation of video quality and reliability.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Pediatric rheumatology on social media: experts ensure accuracy, public drives engagement - a comparative analysis.Rheumatology international · 2025Article
- Analysis of the quality of vulvar cancer-related videos on YouTube.Translational cancer research · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the content and quality of schizophrenia on TikTok: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- YouTube, Bilibili, and TikTok serve as important stroke-relevant information sources: A cross-sectional study.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
objectivesThis research aims at evaluating the quality of anal cancer and its precancerous lesions-related videos on YouTube.
designCross-sectional survey design.
settingUSA.
participantsThe top 150 videos on YouTube were selected for analysis based on three search terms. The duplicate, irrelevant, commercial, operation-related and audio-free videos were excluded. Finally, 105 relevant videos were included.
methodsWe assessed the completeness of video content from six dimensions and marked the men having sex with men (MSM)-related videos. To measure the video quality, DISCERN,
resultsThe video content was mainly about the management of the disease (mean score 1.086). Overall, the quality of videos uploaded by the non-profit organisation was relatively high. A correlation existed between each other of the
conclusionsAlthough the overall quality of information about anal cancer and its precancerous lesions videos on YouTube is acceptable, it might not fully meet the health information needs of patients. Therefore, they should exercise caution when using YouTube as a source of anal cancer-related information, especially the MSM population.
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.