Observational studyJournal of human hypertension2025
Assessing the quality and reliability of youtube information on hypertension: a comprehensive analysis.
Observational study in Journal of human hypertension, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Views vs. reliability : a cross-sectional analysis of reliability and risk discussion in YouTube anesthesia videos.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patient education is an important aspect in the management of hypertension and YouTube has become a popular platform for sharing hypertension-related information, but concerns persist regarding the accuracy and reliability of such content in the context of patient education. To address this issue, this cross-sectional type of observational study aims to assess YouTube's information on hypertension using the Global Quality Score (GQS) and Reliability Score (DISCERN SCORE), which evaluate the quality and trustworthiness of the YouTube content, and the Video Power Index (VPI). Majority of the videos are uploaded by physicians (26, 33.3 percent) and most give information about causes/etiology, treatment, complications (n = 51, 65.38%) each. The median GQS for all the videos is 4. The median reliability score is 4. The statistical test used is Kruskal - Wallis Test. The p value of VPI, GQS, and Reliability score among various types of uploader are 0.264, 0.347 and 0.452. Hence, there is no statistical significance (p value > 0.05). The analysis therefore suggests that the quality of these videos is moderate. Although they usually provide accurate information, they lack comprehensiveness and may have a biased perspective.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40050348What 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.