ArticleCureus2025
Evaluating the Effect of Video Source and Other Video Characteristics on the Quality, Reliability, Actionability, and Understandability of Videos on Acromioclavicular Joint Repair.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to evaluate video quality, reliability, actionability, and understandability differences based on length, popularity, and source credentials (physician versus non-physician). The hypothesis suggests that current videos are of low quality and limited usefulness to patients, highlighting significant disparities based on the credentials of the video source.
methodsThe phrase "acromioclavicular joint separation" was searched on YouTube. The first 100 videos that populated were selected. Of those 100, 45 were excluded based on pre-existing criteria. Two reviewers watched and graded the included videos using four established, additive algorithmic grading scales. Grades for all included videos were analyzed using R software version 4.2.3.
resultsThe mean Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) score was 2.32 (standard deviation (SD) = 0.74), with patient-made videos having a significantly lower reliability score (p = 0.008). The mean Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) understandability and actionability scores were 59.78% (SD = 15.28%) and 67.55% (SD = 15.28%) respectively. PEMAT actionability scores were positively correlated to views (p = 0.002). The average DISCERN score was 2.51 (SD = 0.70); longer videos were correlated with higher DISCERN scores (p = 0.047).
conclusionAnalysis indicated that there were significant differences in reliability and understandability between video source types. Additionally, there was no correlation between quality and/or reliability and views, indicating that the YouTube algorithm is not an effective indicator of the quality of videos.
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.