ArticleDigital health
Quality, reliability, and content analysis of YouTube videos on transperineal prostate biopsy.
Article in Digital health. 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
Aim: To systematically assess the quality, reliability, and content attributes of YouTube videos pertaining to transperineal prostate biopsy (TPB), an innovative method for diagnosing prostate cancer. Materials and methods: A systematic search was performed on YouTube on May 18, 2025, using the terms "transperineal prostate biopsy," "TP biopsy," and "perineal prostate needle biopsy." The search was conducted in incognito mode to reduce personalized bias. Videos in the English language uploaded from April 2019 to April 2025 were included. Videos that were duplicate, irrelevant, non-English, or lacking of sound were eliminated. Sixty movies, organized by relevance, were reviewed, resulting in 50 videos that satisfied the inclusion criteria for analysis. Two senior urologists independently evaluated each video using the Global Quality Scale (GQS) and the modified mDISCERN (mDISCERN) tool to measure reliability and quality. Video metadata, including time, views, likes, upload date, and creator category (academic professional, non-academic professional, patient, medical company, or others), was documented. Results: The average duration of videos was nearly 7 min, with an average of 8950 views per video. Healthcare workers created 60% of the videos, whereas 10% included advertising material. The predominant subjects addressed were procedural methodologies, anesthesia, and a comparative analysis of infection risk associated with the transrectal technique. The average GQS score was 2.96 ± 0.77, indicating moderate quality, whereas the average mDISCERN score was 2.1 ± 0.9, suggesting low to moderate reliability. Several videos referenced peer-reviewed literature, while numerous others displayed commercial bias. Inter-rater reliability was significant, with intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.893 for GQS and 0.861 for mDISCERN. Conclusion: YouTube videos related to TPB show significant range in quality and reliability. Despite being created by healthcare experts, the absence of peer-reviewed references and the prevalence of promotional bias reduce their educational value. There is an immediate necessity for standardized, evidence-based, and unbiased educational resources to enhance patient understanding and help with informed decision-making in prostate cancer diagnosis.
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.