ArticleCureus2024
Diverticulosis and Diverticulitis on YouTube: Is Popular Information the Most Reliable?
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Patients utilize online health information to inform their medical decision-making. YouTube is one of the most popular media platforms with abundant health-related resources, yet the quality of the disseminated information remains unclear. This study aims to evaluate the quality and reliability of content pertaining to diverticulosis and diverticulitis on YouTube. Methods One author queried the terms "diverticulosis," "diverticulitis," "acute diverticulitis," and "chronic diverticulitis" on YouTube. The first 50 videos per search were selected for analysis. Duplicates, non-English videos, or procedural content were excluded. Video characteristics including view count, likes, comments, duration, days since upload, view ratio, video power index, and video sources (professional organizations (POs), health information websites (HIWs), and entertainment/independent users (EIUs)) were collected. Videos were scored using the mDISCERN and Global Quality Score (GQS). Results Sixty-four videos were included. DISCERN scores significantly differed between POs (n=20, mean=4.35), HIWs (n=29, mean=2.97), and EIUs (n=15, mean=1.83). GQS also significantly differed between POs (n=20, mean=4.47), HIWs (n=29, mean=3.62), and EIUs (n=15, mean=2.5). Video characteristics significantly differed between groups, with most user engagement seen in EIUs. Conclusion POs and HIWs disseminate higher quality health information about diverticular disease on YouTube. The higher viewer engagement with EIUs is concerning, as these sources were found to have lower quality content. Although YouTube has the capability to provide valuable information on diverticulosis and diverticulitis, enhanced content screening is needed to ensure accuracy and validation.
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.