ArticleScientific reports2026
Patient vs. physician narratives on refractive surgery in Turkish YouTube videos: a comparative reflexive thematic analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Correctable refractive errors are a major, preventable cause of visual impairment. Refractive surgery is widely promoted online, yet how Turkish-language YouTube videos frame benefits, risks, recovery, and long-term outcomes-and how this framing differs between patient and physician narrators-remains underexplored. We aimed to qualitatively compare patient- and physician-generated Turkish-language YouTube videos on refractive surgery and to describe audience engagement. We conducted a reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke) of 64 publicly available videos (29 patient, 35 physician) meeting predefined criteria (Turkish; primarily refractive surgery; ≥1 min; ≥1,000 views; ≥240p). Searches were performed on 15 July 2025 using predefined search strings. Videos were transcribed verbatim and inductively coded in NVivo by two researchers. Between-group differences in engagement metrics were assessed with Mann-Whitney U tests, with a one-video-per-channel sensitivity analysis to address potential clustering. Patient narratives foregrounded lived experience (decision-making, perioperative discomfort, postoperative visual fluctuations, and symptoms such as dry eye and glare/halos) and often raised concerns about commercialization. Physician narratives emphasized candidacy assessment, procedure selection, recovery timelines, and risk mitigation. In the one-video-per-channel sensitivity analysis (patient n = 27; physician n = 23), patient videos received more likes (median 300 [IQR 1,639] vs. 59 [269], p = 0.009) and showed a higher like-to-view ratio (0.013 [0.01] vs. 0.006 [0.01], p < 0.001), whereas view counts were not significantly different (24,000 [98,900] vs. 18,000 [48,500], p = 0.224). Turkish-language YouTube narratives share experiential touchpoints but diverge systematically in how risks, commercialization, and expectations are framed by patients versus physicians. Findings support the need for balanced, accurate, and discoverable patient-facing materials tailored to platform dynamics.
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.