ArticleBMC urology2025
Is YouTube a reliable source of current information and education about urodynamics? A cross-sectional analysis.
Article in BMC urology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUrodynamic testing plays an important role in assessing lower urinary tract function. Due to the increasing use of the internet for medical information, platforms like YouTube have gained popularity as educational tools for medical procedures. However, the quality and reliability of this information are often uncertain. This study aims to evaluate the quality and reliability of YouTube videos as a source of current information and education on urodynamics.
methodsA search for "urodynamics" and "urodynamics test" on YouTube was conducted on March 8, 2024. The first 100 videos were screened, and 29 relevant videos were evaluated by two urologists. Videos were assessed for duration, number of views, likes, comments, and source, and scored for content quality using the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) criteria, Global Quality Score (GQS), and DISCERN tool.
resultsVideos were categorized into "useful" and "non-useful" groups based on BAUS scores. While there was no significant difference in video popularity metrics between the groups, GQS and DISCERN scores were significantly higher in the "useful" group (p = 0.003 and p = 0.002, respectively). Videos from healthcare professionals, health information websites, and advertisements showed no significant differences in quality metrics, except for the number of subscribers, with advertisement channels having more subscribers (p = 0.026).
conclusionYouTube contains useful information on urodynamics, but the overall quality varies. Efforts should be made to improve the content quality to better serve patients seeking information on this platform.
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.