ArticleInternational journal of impotence research2026
YouTube as a source of information on retrograde ejaculation: insights into content reliability.
Article in International journal of impotence research, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluates the accuracy and reliability of YouTube videos on retrograde ejaculation, a condition affecting male fertility and quality of life. A systematic search conducted on December 11, 2024, identified 97 relevant videos from an initial pool of 545. Videos were analyzed using the DISCERN tool and Global Quality Score to assess reliability and educational quality. Reliable videos, comprising 54.6% of the sample, were significantly more often uploaded by universities, professional organizations, or nonprofit physician groups when compared to non-reliable videos (P = 0.006). When comparing different uploader subgroups, videos from universities, professional organizations, or nonprofit physician groups demonstrated significantly higher DISCERN and Global Quality Scores (P = 0.006, P < 0.001, respectively). In contrast, based on the overall distribution of uploader types among the entire video sample, videos uploaded by individuals or for-profit entities were more frequently classified as non-reliable (P = 0.005). Notably, viewership metrics did not differ significantly between reliable and nonreliable videos (P = 0.552), highlighting the challenge of discerning accurate content based on popularity alone. The findings underscore the importance of promoting high-quality, evidence-based information from credible sources on platforms like YouTube. Addressing misinformation and enhancing the visibility of reliable content are critical to improving patient education and decision-making in managing retrograde ejaculation.
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.