ArticleActa neurologica Belgica2024
Characteristics, reliability, and quality of YouTube videos on meralgia paresthetica: a descriptive cross-sectional study.
Article in Acta neurologica Belgica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the content quality and trustworthiness of snakebite envenomation videos on social media platforms: insights from TikTok and Bilibili.Tropical medicine and health · 2026Article
- Quality of YouTube videos on Chagas disease: compliance with clinical guidelines.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe purpose of this study was to evaluate YouTube videos on meralgia paresthetica (MP) for reliability, quality, and differences between quality levels.
methodsWe analyzed 59 videos related to MP. We evaluated several video characteristics, including views, likes, dislikes, duration, and speaker profile. We used view ratio, like ratio, Video Power Index (VPI), Global Quality Scale (GQS), JAMA criteria, and modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) to assess viewer engagement, popularity, educational quality, and reliability.
resultsThe videos received a total of 4,009,141 views (average 67,951.54), with 25.4% focused on exercise training and 23.7% focused on disease information. Mean scores were mDISCERN 2.4, GQS 2.8, and JAMA 2.1. Physician-led videos had higher mDISCERN scores, while allied health worker-led videos had more views, likes, dislikes, view ratios, and VPI. Poor and high-quality videos differed in views, likes, view ratio, VPI, and duration. Positive correlations existed among mDISCERN, JAMA, and GQS scores, with video duration positively correlated with GQS.
conclusionThe content of YouTube videos discussing diseases significantly influences viewer engagement and popularity. To enhance the availability of valuable content on YouTube, which lacks a peer review process, medical professionals must contribute high-quality educational materials tailored to their target audience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38709463What 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.