ArticleBMC public health2025
Is YouTube™ a useful source of information on home parenteral nutrition?
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Association between sources of nutrition information and self-perceived nutrition competence of healthcare professionals: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- YouTube and TikTok as patient resources: assessment of online video content on extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.Central European journal of urology · 2026Article
- Content accuracy and reliability of pulmonary nodule information on social media platforms: a cross-platform study of YouTube, Bilibili, and TikTok.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the quality and reliability of smoking cessation videos on YouTube: a comparative study across three pandemic periods.Frontiers in public health · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundYouTube™ ( http://www.youtube.com ), the most widely used video website worldwide, is becoming a competitive platform for patients to gain health information and knowledge. This study aims to evaluate if YouTube™ is a useful source of information on home parenteral nutrition (HPN) for the public.
methodsAccording to MeSH (Medical Subject Headings), the combinations of search terms related to parenteral (intravenous) and nutrition (feeding) were searched through YouTube™. In total 131 videos were evaluated, which were cataloged into three categories Education, News & Politics, and People & Blogs. Then a usefulness score was devised to assess video quality and to classify all videos into Slightly useful, Useful, and Very useful.
resultsThe majority of videos included are under the Education category (n = 92, 70.23%). 6 videos were identified as Very useful, which were all under the Education category, 27 videos were identified as Useful, while the rest 98 videos were identified as Slightly useful. The number of likes, the number of views, views per day, and the duration of the Very useful videos are significantly higher than those of Slightly useful videos.
conclusionYouTube™ is a good source of information on home parenteral nutrition. In this study, videos categorized under Education were rated as the highest in usefulness. Due to the highly technical content of HPN, and the existence of a lot of low-credibility information on the internet, patients and professional staff are supposed to view other reliable videos in the field of healthcare information.
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.