ArticleBMC public health2025
Evaluating the quality and reliability of youtube videos on tympanostomy tubes: a comprehensive analysis for patients and parents.
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 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality of Allergic Rhinitis Content Across Social Media Platforms.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2026Article
- How reliable is youtube as a platform for cochlear implant information?Irish journal of medical science · 2026Article
- Linking Perceived Hospital-Generated Content to Psychological Well-Being Through Integrated Cognitive and Emotional Resilience Mechanisms Among Emerging Adults.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Assessing the content and quality of deep vein thrombosis on Bilibili, TikTok, and YouTube: a cross-sectional study.Thrombosis journal · 2026Article
- Views vs. reliability : a cross-sectional analysis of reliability and risk discussion in YouTube anesthesia videos.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Article
- Is YouTube™ a Reliable Source of Information for the Current Use of HIPEC in the Treatment of Ovarian Cancer?Cancers · 2025Review
- Analysing YouTube as a health resource: quality and reliability of videos on pediatric appendicitis.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Evaluating the quality and reliability of youtube videos on Hirschsprung's disease: a comprehensive analysis for patients, parents and health professionals.Pediatric surgery international · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe increasing use of online platforms as sources of medical information has led to a growing concern regarding the accuracy, reliability, and quality of the content available. YouTube, one of the most widely accessed platforms, serves as a prominent source for health-related information, including topics like tympanostomy tubes. However, the variability in the quality of uploaded videos and the lack of standardization raise questions about their utility for patient education and decision-making. This study aims to evaluate the quality and reliability of the information provided by YouTube videos about tympanostomy tubes along with some key metrics of the videos.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, a search was conducted on YouTube on June 6, 2024, using the keywords tympanostomy tubes, ear tubes, ventilation tubes, myringotomy, and grommet insertion. A total of 68 videos with over 10,000 views that met the inclusion criteria were included. Video Power Index (VPI) and Global Quality Scale (GQS), Modified DISCERN and JAMA scores obtained by 2 independent otolaryngologists were statistically analysed.
resultsOnly 13.2% of the videos mentioned complications, and 39.7% addressed anesthesia techniques, with informative videos mentioning anesthesia techniques more frequently than surgical videos (P = 0.003). The average length of the videos was 223.3 ± 155.4 s, the average number of views was 153,884 ± 320,786, and the average VPI was 59.73 ± 93.19. The average quality scores for all videos were 2.81 ± 1.01 for GQS, 3 ± 1.43 for Modified DISCERN, and 2.75 ± 0.9 for JAMA, with the quality scores for informative videos being statistically significantly higher than for surgical videos (P < 0.001, P = 0.007, P = 0.010, respectively). The quality and reliability of the videos varied significantly depending on the uploader, with medical schools/universities and private hospitals generally providing higher quality content.
conclusionsOur findings indicate that while YouTube can be an additional source of information about tympanostomy tubes, there are significant deficiencies in content quality. We believe that patients and their relatives should consider videos uploaded by professionals rather than relying on the number of views and likes when using YouTube as an information source.
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.