ArticleDigital health
Anemia-related YouTube videos: A source of knowledge or misinformation?
Article in Digital health. 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
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the quality, reliability, and popularity of anemia-related videos on the YouTube social media platform. Methods: A total of 50 English-language videos were selected by searching the keyword "anemia" on YouTube in March 2024 using an incognito mode on a desktop device in Turkey. The "relevance" filter was used as it reflects default user behavior and prioritizes algorithmically ranked results. Duplicate, non-English, music-only, and promotional videos were excluded. Videos were evaluated using DISCERN, global quality score (GQS), JAMA benchmark criteria, and video power index (VPI), calculated as: VPI = like ratio (%) × view rate (/day) / 100. Results: Of the 50 videos analyzed, 2% were uploaded by patients, 10% by non-physician healthcare professionals, 14% by media organizations, 24% by independent physicians, and 50% by medical institutions. The mean VPI was 246.76 ± 356.29, GQS 3.53 ± 0.81, JAMA 2.30 ± 0.97, and DISCERN 48.24 ± 11.94. A statistically significant correlation was found between the number of likes, like ratio, and GQS scores (p = 0.027 and p = 0.012, respectively). VPI showed a weak but significant correlation with GQS (p = 0.047, r = 0.28). Video duration showed a moderate correlation with DISCERN (r = 0.394, p = 0.005) and a weak correlation with JAMA scores (r = 0.338, p = 0.016). Conclusion: The quality and reliability of anemia-related videos on YouTube are generally moderate and variable. Videos uploaded by healthcare professionals were significantly more reliable and of higher quality. These findings highlight the need for health professionals to produce accurate and engaging content and for users to be guided toward evidence-based sources.
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.