ArticleInternational ophthalmology2025
Retinal vein occlusion on YouTube: how reliable is public health information in the digital era?
Article in International ophthalmology, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeYouTube is a widely accessed platform for health-related information, yet its ophthalmologic content remains largely unregulated. Despite growing interest in video evaluations, no prior study has systematically assessed the quality of YouTube videos on retinal vein occlusion (RVO).
methodsA cross-sectional analysis of the top 100 English-language YouTube videos on RVO was performed. Videos were independently scored using the Global Quality Score (GQS), DISCERN, and JAMA criteria.
resultsThe mean GQS, DISCERN, and JAMA scores were 3.49 ± 1.14, 17.17 ± 3.93, and 2.34 ± 1.17, respectively. Videos uploaded by professionals had significantly higher quality scores (p < 0.05), while no significant differences were observed across RVO subtypes (BRVO, CRVO, general RVO). Approximately 51% of videos were rated below high-quality thresholds.
conclusionsThe study reveals substantial variation in the reliability of YouTube content related to RVO. There is a critical need for expert involvement in producing and curating online ophthalmic education materials to improve digital health literacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41236659What 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.