ArticleIntegrative cancer therapies
Development of an Assessment Tool for YouTube Videos With Medical Content: A Focus on Nutrition and Cancer.
Article in Integrative cancer therapies. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Quality Assessment of YouTube Videos on Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) for Cancer Using a Newly Developed Tool.Integrative cancer therapiesArticle
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
backgroundCancer patients increasingly use YouTube for nutritional guidance, yet information quality varies substantially. Existing text-based assessment tools fail to capture audiovisual content characteristics. This study aimed to (1) develop a video-specific assessment tool, (2) evaluate German-language YouTube videos on cancer nutrition, and (3) identify quality indicators for laypersons.
methodsA 20-criteria assessment tool integrating established instruments and video-specific elements was developed. The first 30 YouTube videos on cancer nutrition were systematically evaluated. Spearman correlation and Kruskal-Wallis tests identified associations between video characteristics and quality scores. Interrater reliability was assessed.
resultsIntraclass correlation coefficient indicated good to very good interrater reliability (95% CI: 0.87-0.96). Overall video quality was poor (mean: 38.6/60, SD: 5.3). Videos from hospitals (
conclusionYouTube videos on cancer nutrition exhibit substantial quality deficits, even from institutional providers. The validated assessment tool identifies observable quality indicators including clear objectives, scientific citations, transparent discussion of evidence gaps, and institutional authorship. However, no single feature reliably predicts quality. Strengthening digital health literacy and improving evidence-based content production and visibility remain essential priorities.
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.