ArticleBMC anesthesiology2026
Views vs. reliability : a cross-sectional analysis of reliability and risk discussion in YouTube anesthesia videos.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2026. 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the quality and reliability of anesthesia-related videos on YouTube, a widely used online platform for patient education.
methodsA cross-sectional analysis was conducted on June 15, 2025. Using the keywords “anesthesia,” “general anesthesia,” “regional anesthesia,” “spinal anesthesia,” and “epidural anesthesia,” the first 50 English-language videos ranked by relevance were selected. Inclusion criteria were relevance to anesthesia, adequate audiovisual quality, and narration or subtitles. Data extracted included video characteristics (upload date, duration, views, likes, comments, and source). Two anesthesiologists independently assessed video quality using the Global Quality Scale (GQS, 1–5) and reliability using the modified DISCERN tool (1–5). Interobserver agreement was measured by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Statistical analysis was performed with independent t-tests and chi-square tests, with significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsThe 50 videos had a cumulative 760,000 views, with a mean duration of 480 ± 360 s. Most were uploaded by anesthesiologists (70%), but only 40% originated from academic institutions. The mean GQS score was 3.70 ± 0.95, while the mean DISCERN score was 2.62 ± 1.22; only 18% of videos were classified as highly reliable. Interobserver agreement was excellent (ICC = 0.921 for GQS, ICC = 0.934 for DISCERN). Academic sources demonstrated significantly higher reliability scores compared to non-academic sources (p = 0.03). Risk and complication discussions were present in only 40% of videos, and long-term outcomes in 18%.
conclusionAlthough YouTube provides accessible content on anesthesia, overall video quality and reliability remain limited, with only 18% of videos classified as highly reliable. The majority of videos did not adequately address risks, complications, or long-term outcomes (40% and 18%, respectively). Academic and professional involvement is needed to enhance the reliability of online patient education materials, as current determinants of quality appear to be source credibility rather than viewing metrics.
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.