ArticlePloS one2025
YouTube as an information source in deep margin elevation: Reliability, accuracy and quality analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- ChatGPT, Gemini, and Grok on familial mediterranean fever: are they trustworthy?Clinical rheumatology · 2026Article
- Quality Analysis of YouTube-Based Exercise Programs for Typically Developing Children: Content Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Assessing the reliability and educational value of YouTube videos on computer-controlled local anesthesia in dentistry.PloS one · 2025Article
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
The objective of this research was to assess the accuracy, quality, content, and demographics of videos on YouTube concerning deep margin elevation (DME). Initially, 100 videos for each of the three keywords were analyzed. The content categories of these videos were diverse, encompassing educational materials, teaching techniques, advertisements, and other types of content. The evaluation of the videos was carried out based on the Global Quality Scale (GQS), the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark, and the modified-DISCERN questionnaire (m-DISCERN). Non-distributed data were analyzed using the Kruskal Wallis test and the Spearman correlation coefficient. The JAMA score was 1 for four videos, 2-3 for 38, and 4 for 14 videos; the GQS score was 1-2 for 18 videos, 3 for 11 videos, and 4-5 for 27 videos; and the m-DISCERN score was < 3 for 39 videos, 3 for four videos, and > 3 for 13 (for a total of 56 videos). Statistically significant differences were observed only for the JAMA scores when comparing the video source groups (p = 0.001). There were significant positive correlations between the GQS and m-DISCERN and m-DISCERN and JAMA scores (p < 0.001 and p = 0.049, respectively). The findings indicated that YouTube videos related to DME generally exhibited high-quality content but only moderate accuracy and poor reliability.
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.