ArticleBreast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)2026
Evaluating the quality of Japanese YouTube videos on breast cancer treatment using PRHISM: comparison by source credibility.
Article in Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBreast cancer patients require a wide range of medical information, and an increasing number now use social media as a primary source. However, the quality of such information varies considerably, and its reliability often depends on the source. To address this, Denniss et al. developed PRHISM, a tool designed to evaluate the quality of information on social media platforms. In our previous study, we demonstrated validity of PRHISM. This study evaluated Japanese YouTube videos on breast cancer treatment and examined differences in quality by source type.
methodsThe top 60 videos displayed in order of relevance were selected on YouTube using the search terms "breast cancer," "treatment," and "chemotherapy." Six breast cancer specialists evaluated the informational quality using PRHISM. Based on the National Academy of Medicine, video sources were classified as credible or other sources. The quality of the videos was then compared using PRHISM scores.
resultsThe overall mean PRHISM score was 60.6 (SD 11.5); 8 videos (13.3%) were rated excellent and 37 (61.7%) good. Videos from credible sources (n = 19) had a significantly higher mean score (70.9, SD 7.67) than those from other sources (n = 41; 55.8, SD 9.79; p = 0.001). The proportion of videos rated as excellent or good was also significantly higher among credible sources (p = 0.023).
conclusionJapanese YouTube videos on breast cancer treatment were generally of relatively high quality. Videos from credible sources received significantly higher evaluations. When patients search for medical information on YouTube, it is advisable that they refer to content provided by recommended and credible sources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41160381What 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.