ArticleCureus2023
Migraine Information on the Web for Patients: A YouTube Content Analysis Based on a Scoring System.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The diagnostic performance of ultrasound features for biliary atresia: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis.Pediatric surgery international · 2025Pooled it
- Migraine care in the digital era: social listening insights and neurologists' perspectives from Türkiye.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- YouTube as a Source of Patient Information for Cerebral Palsy.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Migraine, as a major cause of headaches, showcases the need for the public to be well aware of it. The legitimacy and quality of YouTube as a platform to find information regarding migraine have not been validated. The aim of this study was to assess the content, quality, and reliability of information about migraine on YouTube. Methodology Videos were reviewed on YouTube after searching for relevant keywords. They were screened for a predetermined inclusion criterion and they entered into a performed questionnaire by authors. Using the Global Quality Scale and DISCERN scale, the effectiveness of the videos was evaluated. These videos were further analyzed for viewership and their relation to the effectiveness of the videos by the Video Power Index (VPI). Results The videos published by "others" had the highest VPI, at 517.13, followed by videos uploaded by doctors, at 117.91. The difference in the VPI was determined to be statistically significant across various groups (p=0.033). The doctors' videos received the highest reliability ratings, but the difference between them and "others" was not statistically significant (p=0.317). Conclusions Videos regarding migraine on YouTube could be more effective. The latest preventive strategies must be provided, together with supporting evidence from the authors.
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.