ArticleScientific reports2026
A content and quality analysis on open online platform videos on do not resuscitate (DNR).
Article in Scientific reports, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The decision to implement a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order is a challenging medical decision made by physicians. Both laypersons and healthcare professionals need a better understanding of DNR orders. Educational videos could enhance DNR understanding, but their content and quality haven’t been systematically evaluated. A search on YouTube and Google identified 90 eligible videos for analysis. Technical information was collected, and the content was examined using a DNR questionnaire (DNR-q) developed for this study. Video quality was evaluated with the modified DISCERN (m-DISCERN), Global Quality Scale (GQS) and JAMA scale. Most videos were from the United States (n = 51, 56.7%) and presented by a self-described physician (n = 45, 50%). The median DNR-q and m-DISCERN scores were 10/23 and 38/80, respectively. Higher scores on DNR questionnaire correlated significantly (p < 0.001) with higher scores on m-DISCERN, GQS laypersons and GQS professional scores. However, only 20 (22%) videos were ranked good or excellent with m-DISCERN, and none covered all DNR-q items. Only 12 (13.3%) videos achieved the maximum JAMA score of 4. The content and quality of the videos were suboptimal. Most videos failed to provide acceptable information regarding DNR decision-making. Better planning and evidence-based approaches are needed to improve the quality of DNR-related videos published on open online platforms.
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.