ArticlePeerJ2024
The quality and reliability of patient education regarding sound therapy videos for tinnitus on YouTube.
Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Videos on Bilibili, TikTok, and Xiaohongshu as Sources of Medical Information on Adenoid Hypertrophy: Cross-Sectional Content Analysis.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- The quality and reliability of short videos about passive smoking on Bilibili and TikTok: A cross-sectional study.Tobacco induced diseases · 2026Article
- YouTube/ Bilibili/ TikTok videos as sources of medical information on laryngeal carcinoma: cross-sectional content analysis study.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Physician-dominated yet suboptimal: Evaluating the quality of Meniere's disease information on TikTok in China.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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Numerous online videos are available on sound therapy as a treatment modality for tinnitus, but it is uncertain if these videos are adequate for patient education. This study aims to evaluate the quality and reliability of tinnitus sound therapy videos on YouTube for patient education. Methods: YouTube videos were searched using keywords related to "tinnitus sound therapy". The top 100 videos were analyzed after excluding those were repetitive, irrelevant, less than 3 min, or not in English. After categorising the videos based on their authorship and content, the video power index (VPI) was relied to determine their popularity. The DISCERN questionnaire (DISCERN), the Global Quality Score (GQS), the Journal of the American Medical Association benchmark criteria (JAMA), and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) were utilized to evaluate the quality, transparency, and patient education. Results: Over half (56%) of the videos were published by professional organizations. A total of 93% of them contained sound only. Only 17% followed the recommendations of the Clinical Management of Tinnitus Guidelines, and 3% provided literature referenced by the video. A variety types of sound were used, among which music accounting for 35%. The videos were highly popular with an average views of 7,335,003.28 ± 24,174,764.02 and an average VPI of 4,610.33 ± 11,531.10. However, their quality was poor (the median scores: 38/80 for DISCERN, 2/5 for GQS, 1/4 for JAMA, and 50%/100% for PEMAT). There was a negative correlation between the popularity of the videos and their quality, indicated by PEMAT: -0.207, DISCERN: -0.307, GQS: -0.302, and JAMA: -0.233. Several dimensions of the videos require improvement, especially actionability, treatment options, and transparency with lacks of 100%, 63%, and 75% respectively. Conclusion: The tinnitus sound therapy videos available on YouTube exhibit low quality. Nevertheless, they also hold potential for health education if refined and utilized suitably.
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.