ArticleArquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia2025
Assessment of the content and quality of YouTube videos on retinopathy of prematurity: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the quality and reliability of YouTube videos as an educational resource about retinopathy of prematurity.
methodsVideos were sourced from YouTube using the search terms "retinopathy of prematurity" and "premature retinopathy" with the default settings. Each video was assessed on the following metrics: views, likes, dislikes, comments, upload source, country of origin, view ratio, like ratio, and video power index. The quality and reliability of the videos were evaluated by two independent researchers using the DISCERN questionnaire, the JAMA benchmarks, the Global Quality Score scale, the Health on the Net Code of Conduct, and the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients scale.
resultsThe study assessed 92 videos, the majority of which (42 videos, 45.7%) originated from the United States. Most of the videos focused on screening, pathophysiology, and diagnosis of retinopathy of prematurity (61.9%). The primary contributors were medical organizations (19 videos, 20.6%), nonacademic health channels (19 videos, 20.6%), and physicians (15 videos, 16.3%). Significant differences were found between the DISCERN (p=0.003), JAMA (p=0.001), Global Quality Score (p=0.003), Health on the Net Code of Conduct (p=0.006), and Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (p=0.001) scores among different video sources. However, the key video metrics did not differ. Using the DISCERN and Global Quality Score scales, the overall YouTube video content on retinopathy of prematurity was rated as moderate in quality. Using the Health On the Net Code of Conduct and Ensuring Quality Information for Patients scales, it was rated as high quality. Strong correlations were observed between the scores on all of the scales (p<0.001).
conclusionVideos from medical organizations and healthcare centers were of a higher quality than those from nonmedical sources. Despite the varied foci of each evaluation scale, the strong correlation between them indicates that they provide reliable and comprehensive assessments of the quality of informational content.
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.