ArticleCureus2024
A Double-Edged Sword: Quality and Credibility of Colon Cancer Screening Content on YouTube.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- AI-generated videos in medical science popularization and education: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Understanding TikTok's Role in Young-Onset Colorectal Cancer Awareness and Education.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a significant public health challenge globally, with its pathogenesis involving the transformation of benign adenomas into malignant carcinomas. Despite advancements in screening and early detection significantly improving outcomes, the rise of digital platforms like YouTube for disseminating health information presents new challenges. Concerns over the accuracy and reliability of content underline the necessity for rigorous evaluation of these digital health education tools. Methods Our study was conducted at Nassau University Medical Center, East Meadow, New York. We meticulously analyzed YouTube videos on "colon cancer screening awareness," employing strict selection criteria to ensure both relevance and quality, focusing on English-language content with pertinent audio. Videos were evaluated for their quantitative and qualitative attributes-views, subscriber counts, likes/dislikes, comments, and content type, classifying them as scholarly or personal. We assessed video credibility through scientific accuracy using the DISCERN instrument, Global Quality Score (GQS), and Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT), ensuring consistency in quality and reliability evaluation among seven researchers via the intraclass correlation coefficient. These tools - DISCERN for assessing reliability and quality, GQS for evaluating overall quality, and PEMAT for understandability and actionability - facilitated a comprehensive evaluation framework. Our analysis, leveraging descriptive and inferential statistics, scrutinized differences in content quality between academic and private institutions, employing t-tests to identify statistically significant disparities. The study utilized Microsoft Excel (version 16.73, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington, United States) and IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 29.0 (released 2022; IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, United States). for robust data processing and analysis, confirming the educational value and trustworthiness of the examined YouTube content. Results Our study of 156 YouTube videos on educational content, split between academic (68 videos) and private sources (88 videos), revealed significant quality differences. Using the DISCERN, PEMAT, and GQS metrics, academic videos consistently outperformed private ones, with significant margins: DISCERN (54.61 vs. 34.76), PEMAT (3.02 vs. 2.11), and GQS (3.90 vs. 2.02), supported by low p-values indicating a statistically significant superiority. These findings suggest that the source of content-academic versus private-plays a crucial role in determining the quality and reliability of educational materials on platforms like YouTube, highlighting the academic sector's commitment to higher educational standards. Conclusion The study emphasizes the critical role of credible sources in enhancing the quality of health education content on YouTube, particularly concerning CRC screening. The superiority of academic institutions in providing high-quality content suggests a need for viewers to critically assess the source of information. It also calls for enhanced regulatory oversight and measures to ensure the accuracy and reliability of health information online.
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.