ArticleScientific reports2026
Quality of YouTube videos on Chagas disease: compliance with clinical guidelines.
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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chagas disease remains a public health problem, and YouTube is used to access health information. This study aimed to assess whether YouTube videos on Chagas disease comply with scientific guidelines. This study analyzed videos identified using terms in English, Portuguese and Spanish. Two independent reviewers assessed eligible videos. Video quality was evaluated using a scale developed and pre-tested by three clinical experts. Comparisons between adequate and inadequate videos were performed using Mann-Whitney or Fisher's exact tests, and associations between variables were assessed using Poisson regression. Among 158 videos screened, 96 were included. For definition, videos from healthcare and academic institutions/professionals showed higher prevalence ratio of adequate quality (1.86; 95% CI 1.14-3.02), as did treatment (3.69; 95% CI 1.67-8.15). Videos in English (0.57; 95% CI 0.34-0.97) and Spanish (0.31; 95% CI 0.16-0.61), and longer duration (0.998; 95% CI 0.995-0.999) were associated with lower quality for definition. Higher numbers of views, likes, and longer duration were associated with higher prevalence of adequate quality for etiology, while longer duration was associated with natural history and with lower prevalence of adequate quality for diagnosis. Most videos showed inadequate quality, highlighting the need for better guideline-based content on YouTube.Registration number: 10.17605/OSF.IO/NXW8H.
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.