ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024
Accuracy, Quality, and Misinformation of YouTube Abortion Procedural Videos: Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Pregnancy termination on YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok: a content and quality analysis].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026Article
- Impacts of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights Misinformation in Digital Spaces on Human Rights Protection and Promotion: Scoping Review.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- Exploring the Motivations and the Concerns Behind Self-Managed Medication Abortion Done by Purchasing Medication Online: Qualitative Interview Study With US Abortion Seekers Post-Roe.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- English- and Spanish-speaking U.S. adults' perceptions of the most common reasons for abortion: a study of open-ended data before and after Dobbs v. Jackson.Reproductive health · 2025Article
- The Reliability and Quality of Videos as Guidance for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Quality and reliability of kidney stone information on TikTok and Bilibili: A cross-sectional study.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe internet is often the first source patients turn to for medical information. YouTube is a commonly used internet-based resource for patients seeking to learn about medical procedures, including their risks, benefits, and safety profile. Abortion is a common yet polarizing medical procedure. People interested in obtaining an abortion are likely to use the internet to learn more about abortion procedures and may encounter misinformed and biased information. This is troubling as information found on the internet can significantly alter perceptions and understanding of these procedures. There is no current research that evaluates the accuracy, quality, and misinformation of instructional abortion videos available to patients.
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to assess if any given video can deliver accurate and quality information about this topic in an unbiased manner and to assess the level of factually incorrect, distorted, or medically irrelevant information in any given video.
methodsProcedural methods of abortion were queried on YouTube on August 22, 2022. The videos were screened with strict exclusion criteria. Videos were categorized into "video slants" based on the language and attitudes expressed in each video. Video accuracy was calculated using the Surgical Curriculum in Obstetrics and Gynecology (SCOG) checklist for each corresponding procedure. Video quality was calculated using the Laparoscopic Surgery Video Educational Guidelines (LAP-VEGaS) criteria. The level of misinformation was assessed with the evidence-based Anti-Choice Rubric, which scores the amount of factually incorrect, distorted, or medically irrelevant information in each video.
resultsA total of 32 videos were analyzed and categorized into 3 "video slant" groups: neutral (n=23, 72%), antichoice (n=4, 12%), and prochoice (n=5, 16%). Using the SCOG checklist, neutral videos had the highest median accuracy (45.9%), followed by antichoice videos (24.6%) and prochoice videos (18.5%). None of the videos met the LAP-VEGaS quality control criteria, (score>11, indicating adequate quality). Neutral videos had a median score of 8.8 out of 18, with antichoice videos scoring 10.75 and prochoice videos scoring 6.2. Using the Anti-Choice Rubric, neutral videos mentioned only 1 factually incorrect piece of information. Antichoice videos mentioned 12 factually incorrect pieces of information, 8 distortions, and 3 medically irrelevant pieces of information. Prochoice videos did not mention any of the 3 themes.
conclusionsUsing the SCOG checklist, the accuracy of instructional videos were inconsistent across the 3 identified "video slants." Using LAP-VEGaS criteria, the quality of educational videos were also inconsistent across the 3 "video slants." Prochoice videos had the lowest level of misinformation, with no mentions of any of the 3 themes. Antichoice videos had the highest levels of misinformation, with mentions in all 3 themes. Health care professionals should consider this when counseling patients who may watch YouTube videos for information regarding abortion procedures.
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.