ArticleCureus2024
YouTube™ Videos as a Source of Information on Necrotizing Gingivitis: A Content-Quality Analysis.
Article in Cureus, 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.
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
Background This study aims to evaluate the quality, reliability, and content of the information provided in YouTube™ videos on necrotizing gingivitis (NG), demonstrate the effectiveness of the videos for patients, and help dentists use this platform as a resource to properly guide their patients. Methodology This cross-sectional study was conducted by two experienced periodontologists. They began the study by searching for YouTube™ videos using the keywords "necrotizing gingivitis" and "trench mouth." Descriptive parameters such as the source of upload, country of origin, duration, upload date, number of likes, dislikes, views, and comments were evaluated. After this initial evaluation, the viewing rate and interaction index were calculated. Videos were categorized into high content (HC) and low content (LC) based on a 7-point scale. The quality of video content was assessed using the Global Quality Scale (GQS) and the Video Information and Quality Index (VIQI). The data were analyzed using various statistical tests, with a significance level set at p<0.05. Results Initially, 148 videos were screened, and 50 videos on NG that met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. Out of the 50 videos, 28 (56%) were uploaded by healthcare professionals. Overall, 68% of videos (n=34) were classified as HC and 32% (n=16) as LC. The most common topic was clinical symptoms and signs of NG, with 86% (n=43), while NG prevention was the least common topic, with 26% (n=13). Statistically significant differences were found between video duration, time since upload, and VIQI scores according to TCS scores (p<0.05). Video duration and VIQI scores were higher for HC videos compared to LC videos. The time since upload for LC videos was higher than for HC videos. Positive correlations were observed between TCS scores, video duration, and VIQI, as well as between GQS scores, video duration, viewing rate, and VIQI. Conclusions The majority of NG videos on YouTube™ are useful and comprehensive, but their number is insufficient. Poor-quality and inadequate videos may mislead practitioners and patients. However, this also presents an opportunity for healthcare professionals to leverage YouTube™ as an educational tool. Periodontologists should upload more comprehensive videos and play a more active role in providing high-quality information.
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.