ArticleCureus2024
An Objective Comparison of the Quality and Reliability of Information Regarding Autism Spectrum Disorder 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A cross-sectional study on the quality of pediatric autism-related videos on short video platforms.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundYouTube serves as a good source of information on autism; however, the reliability and quality of such content remain uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and quality of autism-related information presented in YouTube videos using the Global Quality Score (GQS) and Reliability Score. Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted in November 2023. A total of 48 autism-related videos on YouTube were sourced using keywords such as 'autism', 'autism cause', 'autism treatment', and 'autism kids'. The authors then viewed the videos and collected data regarding the number of views, likes and comments, uploader type, and type of information disseminated. The authors also used The GQS and modified DISCERN score to assess the quality and reliability of information in the videos. The data was then subjected to statistical analysis using the Kruskal-Wallis test and IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22 (Released 2013; IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, United States). Results: Out of 48 videos, seven videos were excluded, leaving 41 for analysis. The included videos amassed 25,540,635 views, 304,557 likes, and 37,039 comments. The majority of videos were uploaded by hospitals (n=15; 36.59%), followed by news channels (n=12; 29.27%). Most videos described autism symptoms (n=26; 63.41%), with fewer addressing potential etiology (n=16; 39.02%). The median GQS was highest for videos uploaded by healthcare professionals (n=5), contrasting with news channels. The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed significant differences (p=0.02). Conclusion: These videos collectively garnered substantial viewership, likes, and comments. Most videos described autism symptoms, although fewer addressed potential causes. Notably, videos uploaded by healthcare professionals achieved the highest GQSs, highlighting their significance in disseminating reliable autism information. Healthcare professionals therefore play a crucial role in disseminating reliable autism information via YouTube. Encouraging their involvement in creating informative videos can enhance public understanding of autism.
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.