ArticleIntegrative cancer therapies
Quality Assessment of YouTube Videos on Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) for Cancer Using a Newly Developed Tool.
Article in Integrative cancer therapies. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- YouTube videos on nutrition and pediatric cancer: scientific reliability and quality.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Quality and reliability of pediatric pneumonia related short videos on mainstream platforms: cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Development of an Assessment Tool for YouTube Videos With Medical Content: A Focus on Nutrition and Cancer.Integrative cancer therapiesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe global burden of cancer continues to rise and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is attracting a lot of interest. However, quality of online information on CAM, particularly on platforms like YouTube, remains questionable. This study aimed to create a comprehensive assessment tool to assess the quality of CAM-related YouTube videos, crucial for informed decision-making in oncology.
methodsThe assessment tool was developed by adapting existing criteria for website content analysis to video rating. A YouTube search was conducted using German-language terms related to CAM ("complementary medicine (CM) for cancer" and "alternative medicine (AM) for cancer"). In total 25 videos were assessed based on the defined criteria and assigned to five different types of providers (journalism, healthcare organization, hospital or health insurance, independent person, non-medical organization). Statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 27.
resultsInterrater reliability analysis showed an Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) of .91, indicating good to excellent agreement. The average video result was of poor quality, with none of the videos meeting all criteria. The videos achieved a mean rating of 38.2 points (SD: 6.5 points; possible range: 20-60 points). Journalism-based videos showed the most views per days, particularly surpassing those from hospitals or health insurance providers (Kruskal-Wallis-Test:
conclusionThis study, the first of its kind focusing on CAM in cancer care emphasized the challenges in identifying credible sources on social media platforms such as YouTube. The developed assessment tool offers a more detailed evaluation method for health-related videos but requires further refinement and testing. Collaboration between healthcare and media entities is suggested to improve the dissemination of reliable information on platforms like YouTube.
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.