ArticleCureus2025
A Quality Assessment of YouTube Videos on Chalazia: Implications for Patient Education and Healthcare Professional Involvement.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Is YouTube™ a Reliable Source of Information for the Current Use of HIPEC in the Treatment of Ovarian Cancer?Cancers · 2025Review
- Quality assessment of short videos on health science popularization in China: scale development and validation.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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundYouTube has become a popular source of health information for patients. However, the quality and reliability of videos related to a chalazion, a common eyelid condition, have not yet been thoroughly evaluated. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsOne hundred YouTube videos were evaluated using keywords such as "chalazion surgery" and "chalazion removal". Two ophthalmologists assessed the videos using the DISCERN, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), and Global Quality Scale (GQS) scoring systems and recorded the source of each video.
resultsAnalysis revealed low average DISCERN (33.0), JAMA (2.0), and GQS (2.5) scores, indicating poor quality and reliability. Most videos (64%) were classified as "poor" quality, with only a small percentage rated "good" or "excellent". Higher-quality content exhibited positive correlations with engagement metrics.
conclusionYouTube videos concerning a chalazion generally lack quality and credibility and are not sufficient for providing reliable patient information. This study emphasizes the need for healthcare professionals to refer patients to trustworthy sources for the creation of high-quality, unbiased 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.