ArticleJMIR infodemiology2025
Assessment of Reliability and Validity of Celiac Disease-Related YouTube Videos: Content Analysis.
Article in JMIR infodemiology, 2025. 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.
- Parental perspectives concerning gluten-free food insecurity in households with children with coeliac disease: take away messages for policy makers.Journal of nutritional science · 2026Article
- Article
- Efficacy of Large Language Models in Providing Evidence-Based Patient Education for Celiac Disease: A Comparative Analysis.Nutrients · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Quality and Reliability of YouTube Videos Providing Nutritional Recommendations for Irritable Bowel Syndrome.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2025Article
- Article
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundYouTube is an increasingly used platform for medical information. However, the reliability and validity of health-related information on celiac disease (CD) on YouTube have not been determined.
objectiveThis study aimed to analyze the reliability and validity of CD-related YouTube videos.
methodsOn November 15, 2023, a search was performed on YouTube using the keyword "celiac disease." This search resulted in a selection of videos, which were then reviewed by 2 separate evaluators for content, origin, and specific features. The evaluators assessed the reliability and quality of these videos using a modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) score, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria score, the usefulness score, video power index (VPI), and the Global Quality Scale (GQS) score.
resultsIn the analysis of 120 initially screened CD videos, 85 met the criteria for inclusion in the study after certain videos were excluded based on predefined criteria. While the duration of the videos uploaded by health care professionals was significantly longer than the other group (P=.009), it was concluded that the median scores for mDISCERN (4, IQR 4-5 vs 2, IQR 2-3; P<.001), GQS (4, IQR 4-5 vs 3, IQR 2-3; P<.001), JAMA (4, IQR 3-4 vs 2, IQR 2-3; P<.001), and usefulness (8, IQR 7-9 vs 6, IQR 3-6; P<.001) of the videos from this group were significantly higher than those from non-health care professionals. Video interaction parameters, including the median number of views, views per day, likes, dislikes, comments, and VPI, demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups.
conclusionsThis study showed that YouTube videos about CD vary significantly in reliability and quality depending on their source. Increasing the production of reliable videos by health care professionals may help to improve patient education and make YouTube a more reliable resource.
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.