ArticleJournal of Alzheimer's disease reports
YouTube as an educational resource: Evaluating the quality and reliability of videos for family caregivers of persons living with Alzheimer's disease dementia.
Article in Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the content quality and trustworthiness of snakebite envenomation videos on social media platforms: insights from TikTok and Bilibili.Tropical medicine and health · 2026Article
- The quality and reliability of short videos about myocardial infarction on TikTok: a 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: YouTube is increasingly used by patients and caregivers as a source of health information. However, the quality and reliability of content on Alzheimer's disease dementia (ADD) remain uncertain. Objective: This study aimed to determine whether YouTube videos on ADD provide reliable and high-quality information for caregivers and to assess whether the most popular videos are also the most trustworthy. Methods: In December 2024, YouTube was systematically searched for ADD-related videos. Two independent physicians reviewed each video, scoring it using modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) for reliability and the Global Quality Scale (GQS) for content quality. Videos were categorized by goal and assessed for quality, accuracy, comprehensiveness, and specific content. Results: There were 117 videos included in the study. Using the mDISCERN scale, 70 videos (59.8%) were deemed with good reliability, 33 videos (28.2%) have moderate reliability, and 14 videos (12%) have poor reliability. Using the GQS, 61 videos (51.1%) have high quality, 16 videos (28%) were assessed as excellent quality, 34 videos (29%) as moderate quality, and 7 videos (6%) as low quality. Videos from academic institutions, news agency and physicians exhibited higher mDISCERN and GQS scores compared to other groups and a significant correlation was seen between mDISCERN and GQS ( Conclusions: The videos on ADD produced by healthcare professionals and academic institutions have high quality and good reliability, covering disease properties, treatment choices, and patient experiences. However, video popularity does not significantly correlate with content reliability and quality.
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.