ArticleInternational ophthalmology2025
A comprehensive quality and reliability assessment of SMILE (small incision lenticule extraction) laser surgery videos on youtube.
Article in International ophthalmology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the quality and reliability of YouTube videos involving SMILE (Small Incision Lenticule Extraction) laser surgery and to assess the differences between physician-authored and patient-generated content.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted on YouTube for SMILE laser surgery videos. The top 100 English-language videos were evaluated using validated scoring systems including DISCERN, JAMA, Global Quality Score (GQS), and Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audio Visual (PEMAT-A/V).
resultsThe average quality scores were moderate across all metrics (DISCERN: 45.1, PEMAT-AV Understandability: 68.8, PEMAT-AV Actionability: 49.9, JAMA: 2.39, GQS: 2.99). Physician-authored videos scored significantly higher on reliability, treatment choices, and overall quality (p < 0.05). Patient-generated videos demonstrated higher viewer engagement, with more views (23,973 vs. 15,467) and comments (28 vs. 8). Positive correlations were determined between video length, likes, comments, and quality metrics (p < 0.05).
conclusionsThe SMILE laser surgery information on YouTube is of moderate quality. While physician-authored videos provide higher quality content, patient-generated videos offer unique perspectives and greater engagement. There is a need for balanced, high-quality video content that incorporates both professional expertise and patient experiences to provide comprehensive and reliable online information about SMILE laser surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40381112What 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.