ArticleCureus2024
Evaluating YouTube as a Good Resource for Enhancing Patient Understanding of Heart Failure.
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.
- Quality, reliability and engagement of aortic dissection-related health information on TikTok: a cross-sectional study from China.Journal of thoracic disease · 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
objectiveThe aim of our study was to evaluate the content and quality of heart failure posts on the video-sharing site YouTube, which is an easily accessible source of information and is becoming increasingly popular in society for obtaining health information.
methodsIn December 2023, we evaluated 162 videos after applying the exclusion criteria as a result of our search with the keyword "Heart Failure" on English-sharing sites. In addition to the technical data of the videos, such as views, duration, upload day, likes, and dislikes, we also used indices such as power index and popularity score in the analyses. We evaluated the quality of the videos using the DISCERN and global quality score scales, and the content using our content score scale. We classified the videos in the study into three quality subgroups according to the scores they received on all three scales.
resultsThe median number of views of the videos included in our study was 31092 (interquartile range (IQR): 3929-127758) and the median video duration was 336 (IQR: 189-843) seconds. The median popularity score was 28.25 (IQR: 4.7-143) and the median power index was 35139 (2061-308128). Group 1 (low quality) included 54 videos with a total score between 10 and 14, group 2 (medium quality) included 54 videos with a total score between 15 and 22, and group 3 (high quality) included 54 videos with a total score between 23 and 30. Views, upload day, and video duration were significantly higher for group 3 videos (p = 0.008, p = 0.001, and p < 0.001, respectively). Likes and dislikes were not significantly different between groups. The popularity score was significantly higher for group 1 videos (39.5 (IQR: 6.5-200), p = 0.023), while the power index was significantly higher for group 3 videos (74206 (IQR: 9477-221408), p = 0.006).
conclusionsOur findings confirm that YouTube, a video-sharing website, is essential for easily sharing and spreading health-related information to a broad audience. Increased attention to videos with scientific content and high-quality scores suggests that YouTube provides accurate and quality information about heart failure. While the number of quality posts tends to increase daily, healthcare professionals should be encouraged to share high-quality scientific videos more frequently.
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.