ArticleBMC public health2026
YouTube as a tool for core stability exercise training a content evaluation study.
Article in BMC public health, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundYouTube® has become a widely used source of health-related information, and individuals with different health conditions increasingly rely on this platform to obtain exercise guidance. The aim of this study was to assess the content accuracy, reliability, and quality of YouTube videos related to core stability exercise training.
methodsA systematic search on YouTube using keywords related to core exercises identified relevant videos. The videos were classified according to their content characteristics and the professional identity of the uploader. Content reliability and video quality were assessed using the modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) and the Global Quality Scale (GQS), respectively. Video popularity was quantitatively assessed using two commonly used metrics: the Video Power Index (VPI) and the View Ratio (VR). Each video was independently evaluated by two physiotherapists experienced in exercise and rehabilitation.
resultsA total of 136 videos were analyzed, of which 89% were classified as useful and 11% as misleading, with statistically significant differences in mDISCERN and GQS scores between the two groups (p<0.05). Based on the video source, the Kruskal–Wallis H test revealed statistically significant differences in scores among groups (p<0.05), with videos uploaded by healthcare professionals and organizations demonstrating higher quality and reliability. Furthermore, linear regression analysis demonstrated no significant associations between video popularity metrics and mDISCERN or GQS scores. Inter-rater reliability, assessed using Cohen’s kappa, indicated substantial agreement for mDISCERN (κ = 0.660) and GQS (κ = 0.610).
conclusionAlthough the majority of YouTube® videos on core stability exercise training were classified as useful, a notable proportion contained misleading information that may negatively influence users. Video popularity metrics do not reliably reflect content quality or reliability; therefore, users should avoid selecting videos based solely on popularity indicators. Greater attention to the professional identity of video uploaders is warranted, as content produced by healthcare professionals and organizations tends to provide more accurate, reliable, and higher-quality information.
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.