ArticleBMC medical education2026
Educational quality of ocular and orbital anatomy videos on YouTube: a student- and patient-centered evaluation.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe YouTube platform is increasingly used by medical students and patients as a supplementary learning tool. However, the quality and educational value of YouTube videos remain underexplored. This study aimed to evaluate the quality, reliability, and educational utility of YouTube videos on eye and orbit anatomy.
methodsA systematic YouTube search was conducted using keywords related to eye and orbit anatomy. Out of 270 videos initially identified, only 100 met the inclusion criteria. Two anatomists and two ophthalmologists independently evaluated the videos using validated tools. The anatomists applied the Anatomy Content Score for Ophthalmology (ACS-O), Global Quality Score for Students (GQS-S), modified DISCERN, and JAMA benchmarks, while the ophthalmologists assessed the patient-focused content using the Global Quality Score for Patients (GQS-P). Video popularity and engagement metrics were recorded. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Kappa coefficient. Non-parametric tests assessed the correlations between instructional quality and YouTube engagement.
resultsThe ACS-O revealed that 54% of the videos are useful for eye and orbit anatomy education. Notably, the percentage of useful videos was higher for student-focused (GQS-S) evaluation at 56% compared to patient-focused (GQS-P) evaluations at just 8%. Correlation analysis demonstrated a strong positive relationship between anatomical accuracy (ACS-O) and student education quality (GQS-S), while an inverse correlation between student and patient scores was observed. A positive correlation was identified between video duration and educational quality for students (ACS-O r = 0.576, GQS-S r = 0.525).
conclusionsYouTube offers valuable supplementary resources for eye and orbit anatomy education, but significant variability in quality highlights the need for systematic evaluation. Also, YouTube consistently falls short of providing adequate, high-quality information for patient education, revealing a significant gap in public health information equity.
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.