ArticleBMC oral health2025
Quality and reliability evaluation of YouTube® exercises content for temporomandibular disorders.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Educational quality and viewer engagement of Youtube videos on ceramic implants: a cross-sectional study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- YouTube as a tool for core stability exercise training a content evaluation study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- YouTube as a resource for Parkinson's disease exercise education: an evaluation of video quality and reliability.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Benchmark evaluation of video large language models in quality assessment of science popularization videos for dry eye.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Quality, usefulness, reliability, and accuracy of YouTube™ information on dental visits for children with autism: a cross-sectional study.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Evaluating online information on temporomandibular disorders: readability, reliability, content and quality: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2025Article
- 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
objectivesYouTube is a popular source for health-related content, including exercises for temporomandibular disorders (TMD). This study aimed to evaluate the content and quality of YouTube videos on TMD exercises.
methodsA systematic search on YouTube using keywords related to TMD exercises and rehabilitation identified relevant videos. Two researchers independently assessed these videos. Content was evaluated using the Video Information and Quality Index (VIQI), reliability with modified DISCERN, and quality with the Global Quality Scale (GQS).
resultsOne hundred twenty one exercise videos were included in the study. Of these, 47 (38.3%) were helpful, and 89 (73.6%) were uploaded by healthcare professionals. Useful and misleading videos had similar metrics for views, likes, comments, and interaction (p > 0.05), but useful videos had longer durations and older upload dates (p < 0.05). Cohen's Kappa scores showed substantial agreement between raters (mDISCERN = 0.709, GQS = 0.753). The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient for VIQI was 0.907. Significant differences were found in mDISCERN, GQS, and VIQI scores based on the source and usefulness of videos (p < 0.05), with high correlations among the instruments (r = 0.740 to 0.909). The area under the curve for the instruments ranged from 0.785 to 0.876.
conclusionsThe majority of YouTube videos on TMD exercises were deemed useful, primarily uploaded by healthcare professionals, and contained reasonably safe, accurate, and quality information. Although this may seem like a positive outcome, unfortunately there was no explanation of TMD diagnoses in the videos. Therefore, it was unclear which types of TMD pathologies the videos were addressing.
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.