ArticleZeitschrift fur Rheumatologie2024
YouTube as a source of information on reactive arthritis: a quality analysis.
Article in Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie, 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.
- Pediatric rheumatology on social media: experts ensure accuracy, public drives engagement - a comparative analysis.Rheumatology international · 2025Article
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
objectiveYouTube is often used by patients and healthcare professionals to obtain medical information. Reactive arthritis (ReA) is a type of inflammatory arthritis triggered by infection, usually in the genitourinary or gastrointestinal tract. However, the accuracy and quality of ReA-related information on YouTube are not fully known. This study aimed to assess the reliability and quality of YouTube videos pertaining to ReA. MATERIALS AND
methodsA YouTube search was performed on August 1, 2023, using the keywords "reactive arthritis," "Reiter's disease," and "Reiter's syndrome." The number of days since upload; the number of views, likes, and comments; and the duration of videos were recorded. The modified DISCERN tool (mDISCERN) and the global quality scale (GQS) were used to evaluate the reliability and quality of the videos. Two physicians independently classified videos as low, moderate, or high quality and rated them on a five-point GQS (1 = poor quality, 5 = excellent quality). The source of videos was also noted.
resultsOf the 180 videos screened, 68 met the inclusion criteria. The most common topic (61, 89.7%) was "ReA overview." Among the 68 videos analyzed, the main source of uploads was physicians 45 (66.2%), and 66 (97%) were categorized as useful. Around half of the YouTube videos about ReA were of high quality (33, 48.5%) according to the GQS. Upon comparing videos uploaded by rheumatologists, non-rheumatology healthcare professionals, and independent users, significant differences were found in mDISCERN and GQS but not in the number of views, likes, and comments or duration. Upon comparing high-, moderate-, and low-quality videos, significant differences were found in the number of views, likes, and comments; duration; and in mDISCERN and GQS.
conclusionYouTube is a source of information on ReA of variable quality, with wide viewership and the potential to influence patients' knowledge and behavior. Our results showed that most YouTube videos on ReA were of high quality. Videos presented by physicians had higher quality. YouTube should consider avoiding low-quality videos by using validity scales such as mDISCERN and GQS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39320505What 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.