ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Quality Analysis of YouTube and Facebook Videos for Glaucoma Treatment Options.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Patients increasingly seek information about medical treatment options from the internet. This study evaluated the quality and accuracy of YouTube and Facebook videos on glaucoma treatment options. Methods: A comprehensive search of "glaucoma" and "eye pressure" combined with "treatment" or "cure" was performed. YouTube videos with at least 25,000 views and 25 views per day and Facebook videos with at least 1000 total views were included. Videos were excluded if they were not in English or about humans. The quality of videos was evaluated by two independent reviewers using a modified Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, and Criteria (CRAAP) metric. Videos were categorized as educational, testimonial, or advertisement. Results: A total of 74 YouTube videos and 19 Facebook videos were included. Of the YouTube videos, 89.7% were educational, 5.5% testimonials, and 4.8% adverts. Of the Facebook videos, 65.8% were educational, 21.1% testimonials, and 13.2% adverts. The inter-rater reliability was acceptable after kappa values were calculated. Fifteen percent of YouTube videos and eighteen percent of Facebook videos were graded as containing misinformation or misleading information. Audio and video quality scores were similar between categories. Higher accuracy and comprehensiveness scores were seen for educational videos. Seventy-four percent of YouTube videos and 66% of Facebook videos addressed the question of what is glaucoma, 65% of YouTube videos and 47% of Facebook videos discussed the course of untreated disease, 64% of YouTube videos and 34% of Facebook videos discussed the goals of treatment, and only 17% of YouTube videos and 0% of Facebook videos discussed the risks of the proposed treatment options. Conclusion: Patients are increasingly using YouTube and Facebook for medical information. This study found that many videos lack useful information and some provide information that may be detrimental. Physicians should be aware of this risk and educate patients appropriately.
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.