ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluation of the quality and reliability of Turkish and English YouTube video contents on gingival recession treatment.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Quality and guideline adherence of child-oriented toothbrushing videos on YouTube: a comparative study of Turkish and English content.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Agreement between artificial intelligence and expert evaluation in assessing the quality of asthma health education videos on YouTube and Bilibili: cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study is to evaluate the quality and reliability of the content in Turkish and English YouTube videos regarding the treatment of gingival recession. The terms "gingival recession treatment," "receding gum treatment," and "gingival recession surgery" were searched on the YouTube video platform using Turkish and English. 42 Turkish and 67 English videos that met the inclusion criteria were evaluated. Video title, origin, content type, duration, upload date, number of views, number of likes/dislikes, viewing rate and interaction index of the videos were recorded. The Global Quality Scale (GQS) and the DISCERN tool were used to evaluate the quality and reliability of the videos. In the study, the reliability scores of Turkish and English videos were found to be 2 and 3, respectively, according to DISCERN criteria. Both the content evaluation score and reliability scores of Turkish videos were found to be lower than those of English videos. The majority of Turkish videos were scored as GQS 1, while the majority of English videos were scored as GQS 2. 97% of both Turkish and English videos had low-quality content. In this study, we found that 97% of the evaluated videos had low-quality content. In order to prevent the spread of misinformation and to ensure that patients can access accurate information, it would be beneficial for educational institutions and specialists to prepare interesting videos with comprehensive content that are easy to understand for patients and share them on internet platforms such as YouTube.
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.