ArticleInternational journal of impotence research2026
Analysis of the YouTube videos on intracavernosal injection in terms of their comprehensiveness, reliability and quality.
Article in International journal of impotence research, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to determine the content, reliability, and quality of YouTube videos related to intracavernosal injection (ICI). A search for the keyword "intracavernosal injection" was conducted on YouTube in February 2025, and the first 100 videos were watched. Video features were recorded. Each video was evaluated by two independent urologists using the comprehensiveness scale designed specifically for this study, modified DISCERN and Global Quality Scale (GQS). The study included 60 videos after exclusion criteria were applied. Videos were classified as belonging to one of two categories: useful or misleading. Useful videos contained scientific suggestions, while misleading videos contained insufficient or unproven information. Analysis revealed that 52 videos provided useful information, whereas 8 videos disseminated misleading content. Useful videos demonstrated significantly higher scores on the comprehensiveness, modified DISCERN, and GQS compared to misleading videos (p < 0.001). Most narrators were urologists, and their videos were more useful (94.4 vs. 75.0%, p = 0.03). Videos narrated by urologists scored significantly higher GQS compared to others (p = 0.018). We also found that USA-based videos were more useful than other countries (93.8 vs 58.3%, p = 0.001). Additionally, videos from the USA had higher comprehensiveness and GQS scores (p = 0.023 and p = 0.038, respectively). Our analysis revealed that YouTube videos about ICI exhibited high quality, reliability, and rich informational content. The current findings highlight the significance of actively encouraging the utilization of urologist-narrated training video materials.
Identifiers
41629440What 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.