ArticleCureus2025
Evaluation of the Educational Value, Reliability, and Quality of Vaginally-Assisted Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (v-NOTES) Videos on YouTube.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluation of ChatGPT-5 responses in obstetric and gynecological emergencies: concordance, readability, and clinical reliability.BMC emergency medicine · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective This study aims to evaluate the quality, reliability, and educational usability of vaginally-assisted natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (v-NOTES) videos on YouTube (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA). Methods This cross-sectional study analyzed 58 videos retrieved from a YouTube search using the keyword "v-NOTES." Quality and reliability assessments were conducted using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) score (0 to four), the modified DISCERN score, the Global Quality Scale (GQS; 0 to five), and the Usefulness Score (US). Video popularity was evaluated using metrics such as viewer engagement, number of likes, like ratio, view count, view rate, and the Video Power Index (VPI). Results Of the evaluated surgical videos, 39 (67.2%) covered hysterectomy, while 19 (32.8%) featured other procedures. Doctors uploaded 44 (75.9%) of the videos, and medical companies shared 14 (24.1%). Animated content was present in 16 (27.6%) of videos, while 42 (72.4%) were non-animated. Among 58 analyzed videos, median quality scores were mDISCERN: three, JAMA: two, and GQS: two. Low-quality videos accounted for 43.1% based on the US. Median video characteristics were duration 330 seconds, views 1300, view rate 1.5, likes 23.5, VPI 0.3, and engagement score 1.6. No significant difference in quality and reliability was found between videos from doctors and medical companies. However, animated videos had higher median mDISCERN, JAMA, and GQS scores, with a significant difference in usefulness scores (p = 0.008). Conclusion This study assessed the quality, reliability, and educational value of YouTube videos on v-NOTES, revealing that despite the abundance of content, overall quality and reliability remain inadequate.
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.