ArticleJournal of pain research2024
Medical Misinformation and Quality of Public Video Content on Cannabis for Chronic Pain Management: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of the YouTube Platform.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Misinformation About Medical Cannabis in YouTube Videos: Systematic Review.JMIR formative research · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Cannabis Dispensary Staff ("Budtender") Perspectives on Trustworthiness of Social Media Information: A Qualitative Study.Cannabis (Albuquerque, N.M.) · 2026Article
- Hip fractures in Chinese TikTok (Douyin) short videos: an analysis of information quality, content and user comment attitudes.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Quality and reliability of osteoarthritis-related health information on short video platforms: a cross-sectional comparative study of TikTok and Bilibili.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Spanish language version of the "Medical Quality Video Evaluation Tool" (MQ-VET): Cross-cultural AI-supported adaptation and validation study.Science progressArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: As cannabis legalization expands nationally and globally, its use for chronic pain increases, prompting people to seek information on social media platforms like YouTube. This study evaluates the accuracy and quality of information of popular YouTube videos on cannabis for chronic pain. Methods: Using search terms related to cannabis for pain, the top 66 videos by view count were selected. Each video was classified as useful, misleading, or neither. The quality and reliability of each video were assessed using the modified DISCERN, mDISCERN, score and the Global Quality Scale, GQS. The video characteristics, usefulness classification, mDISCERN scores, and GQS scores were summarized. Continuous and categorical outcomes were compared using Results: Of the 66 videos, 22.73% (n=15) were classified as useful, and 77.27% (n=51) were classified as neither. Of useful videos, 40.00% (n=6) were uploaded by physicians, 40.00% (n=6) were uploaded by corporations, and 6.67% (n=1) were uploaded by an independent user. Of videos classified as neither useful nor misleading, news sources uploaded 27.45% (n=14) of these videos (P=0.02). Physicians uploaded 37.50% (n = 18) of videos with a GQS score ≥3 (P=0.04), while independent users uploaded significantly more videos with a mDISCERN score <3 (22.20%, P=0.02). Useful videos had a mean GQS of 4.00 ± 0.65 compared to a mean GQS of 2.76 ± 0.86 for videos deemed neither (P<0.0001). Conclusion: This study suggests a moderate quality of YouTube content on cannabis use for chronic pain. Given cannabis's growing popularity and potential for misinformation on popular social media platforms, healthcare professionals and organizations should consider uploading educational videos on this topic on 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.