ArticleIndian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India2025
A Content Analysis of YouTube Videos on Allergic Rhinitis Management.
Article in Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India, 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.
- Quality of Allergic Rhinitis Content Across Social Media Platforms.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2026Article
- YouTube as a source of information on robotic knee replacement: a quality analysis.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study evaluates the quality, reliability, and usability of YouTube videos on allergic rhinitis (AR) management using validated assessment tools to determine their alignment with evidence-based practices and their potential impact on patient understanding. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted on 50 YouTube videos identified using predefined keywords. Videos were assessed using DISCERN, JAMA, and PEMAT tools for quality, authorship, and usability, respectively. Engagement metrics such as views, likes, and comments were recorded. Videos were categorized by source (medical professionals, influencers, pharmaceutical companies, and alternative therapists) and format (testimonial, educational, promotional). Statistical analyses, including Spearman's correlation and chi-square tests, were performed to explore relationships between video quality and engagement. Results: The mean DISCERN, JAMA, and PEMAT scores across all videos were 3.1/5, 2.7/4, and 72%, respectively. Videos by medical professionals scored the highest in quality but had lower engagement, while influencer videos attracted the highest views (mean: 40,000) but scored poorly on quality metrics. Evidence-based treatments were discussed in 72% of videos, yet only 20% mentioned immunotherapy. Misinformation was identified in 36% of videos, with exaggerated claims about "natural cures" being the most common theme. A negative correlation was found between DISCERN scores and views ( Conclusions: YouTube videos on AR management exhibit significant variability in quality and engagement, highlighting a trade-off between reliability and popularity. Enhancing the accessibility and visibility of evidence-based content requires collaboration between medical professionals and content creators. Addressing misinformation and improving patient education through digital platforms is essential for optimizing health outcomes. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12070-025-05396-6.
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.