ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025
The Reliability and Quality of Videos as Guidance for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Public health implications of allergic rhinitis information on YouTube and Bilibili: a cross-cultural analysis of content quality, engagement, and seasonal trends.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Quality of rib fracture-related video information on TikTok and Bilibili: a cross-sectional study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Stratified and combined analysis of the quality of lumbar spinal stenosis-related videos on major Chinese short video platforms.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- TikTok, Bilibili, and Xiaohongshu as sources of information on frailty: Cross-sectional content analysis study.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGastrointestinal endoscopy represents a useful tool for the diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal diseases. Video platforms for spreading endoscopy-related knowledge may help patients understand the pros and cons of endoscopy on the premise of ensuring accuracy. However, videos with misinformation may lead to adverse consequences.
objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the quality of gastrointestinal endoscopy-related videos on YouTube and to assess whether large language models (LLMs) can help patients obtain information from videos more efficiently.
methodsWe collected information from YouTube videos about 3 commonly used gastrointestinal endoscopes (gastroscopy, colonoscopy, and capsule endoscopy) and assessed their quality (rated by the modified DISCERN Tool, mDISCERN), reliability (rated by the Journal of the American Medical Association), and recommendation (rated by the Global Quality Score). We tasked LLM with summarizing the video content and assessed it from 3 perspectives: accuracy, completeness, and readability.
resultsA total of 167 videos were included. According to the indicated scoring, the quality, reliability, and recommendation of the 3 gastrointestinal endoscopy-related videos on YouTube were overall unsatisfactory, and the quality of the videos released by patients was particularly poor. Capsule endoscopy yielded a significantly lower Global Quality Score than did gastroscopy and colonoscopy. LLM-based summaries yielded accuracy scores of 4 (IQR 4-5), completeness scores of 4 (IQR 4-5), and readability scores of 2 (IQR 1-2).
conclusionsThe quality of gastrointestinal endoscope-related videos currently on YouTube is poor. Moreover, additional regulatory and improvement strategies are needed in the future. LLM may be helpful in generalizing video-related information, but there is still room for improvement in its ability.
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.