ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2024
Evaluation of Videos Related to Vaginal Cone Usage on YouTube as an Online Information Source.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 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.
- The effect of the PechaKucha presentation method on nursing students' deep breathing and coughing exercise skills and their satisfaction with the educational method: a randomized controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
- Global Engagement with an Educational Video on Vaginal Pessaries: A 9-Year Mixed-Methods Analysis of YouTube Analytics and User Comments.International urogynecology journal · 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
introduction and hypothesisThe aim of this study is to examine the quality and content characteristics of educational videos on the use of vaginal cones published on YouTube.
methodsVideo searches were conducted on the YouTube website using the keyword "usage of vaginal cones". A total of 52 videos were included in the current study. Modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) and Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) scales were used to evaluate the reliability of the videos, and the Global Quality Scale (GQS) was used for quality and usefulness.
resultsAs a result of the content analysis conducted, it was observed that 29 videos were classified as having "poor content" and 23 as "rich content." When we examined the sources of the videos (n = 52), it was found that the majority (58%, n = 30) were produced by nonhealth care sources (medical companies and nonhealth professionals). With statistical significance in mDISCERN and GQS (p = 0.014, p = 0.036), physiotherapists were found to have the highest average scores (4.11 ± 1.05, 3.44 ± 0.73) whereas doctors ranked second in the average standard deviation (3.09 ± 1.04, 2.82 ± 0.98). In JAMA, medical companies were found to have the highest average score with statistical significance (p = 0.015) at 3.4 ± 0.74, followed by doctors at 3 ± 1, and physiotherapists at 2.89 ± 0.78 when averages were analyzed.
conclusionIt is clearly evident that there is a need for higher quality and more reliable vaginal cone content database on YouTube. It is important for patients to be guided by health care professionals and informed about quality content criteria in order to access quality, reliable, and useful information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39316112What 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.