Observational studyPeerJ2024
YouTube as a source of information in cardiopulmonary resuscitation for 2020 AHA Resuscitation Guidelines.
Observational study in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A content and quality analysis on open online platform videos on do not resuscitate (DNR).Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Internet has transformed global information access, particularly through platforms like YouTube, which launched in 1995 and has since become the second largest search engine worldwide with over two billion monthly users. While YouTube offers extensive educational content, including health topics like cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and basic life support (BLS), it also poses risks due to potential misinformation. Our study focuses on evaluating the accuracy of CPR and BLS videos on YouTube according to the latest 2020 American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines. This research aims to highlight inconsistencies and provide insights into improving YouTube as a reliable educational resource for both lay rescuers and healthcare professionals. Methods: In this cross-sectional observational study, English YouTube videos uploaded between October 21, 2020, and May 1, 2023, were searched using keywords related to CPR and basic life support. Videos were assessed for their source, duration, views, use of human or mannequin models, and mean assessment scores by two emergency medicine physicians. A third physician's opinion was sought in cases of disagreement. The first assessment evaluated video validity based on specified information criteria, while the second assessed their ability to convey advanced medical information aligned with the 2020 AHA guidelines. Results: In this study, 201 English YouTube videos uploaded between October 21, 2020, and May 1, 2023, were evaluated based on search terms related to CPR and BLS, resulting in 95 videos meeting inclusion criteria after excluding 106 due to various reasons. Most included videos were from healthcare professionals (49.5%), followed by anonymous sources (29.5%) and official medical organizations (21.1%). Video durations ranged widely from 43 to 6,019 seconds, with an average of 692 seconds. Videos featuring mannequins predominated (91.6%), followed by those using human subjects (5.3%) or both (3.2%). Healthcare professional and official medical organization videos scoring significantly higher than those of unknown origin ( Discussion: The results presented in this study demonstrated that English-language videos on YouTube related to BLS and CPR, throughout the study period, did not conform to the 2020 AHA guidelines in terms of providing basic information for lay rescuers. Furthermore, healthcare professionals cannot obtain advanced medical knowledge through these videos. We recommend a professional oversight mechanism in health-related videos that does not tolerate such misinformation.
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.