ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2026
Quality, Reliability, and Viewer Engagement of YouTube Videos on Esophageal Cancer: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 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
backgroundEsophageal cancer is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality worldwide and is frequently diagnosed at advanced stages, leading patients and their relatives to seek health-related information beyond traditional clinical encounters. In recent years, YouTube has become a popular source of medical information. Nevertheless, questions persist regarding the accuracy, credibility, and overall reliability of the content available on the platform.
methodsThis cross-sectional study evaluated publicly available YouTube videos related to esophageal cancer. Data were collected on December 3, 2025, using a browser without a user login to minimize algorithm-driven bias. Viewer engagement metrics (views, likes, and comments), source categories, and country of origin were recorded for each video. Content quality and reliability were assessed using the DISCERN instrument, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, and Global Quality Score (GQS). Non-parametric statistical analyses were used to compare quality outcomes across source categories and evaluate the correlations between the engagement metrics and quality scores.
resultsA total of 78 videos met the inclusion criteria, most of which originated in the USA (83.3%). Health-related channels constituted the largest source category (35.9%), followed by patient experience-based videos (23.1%), and private institutions (20.5%). Viewer engagement metrics (views, likes, and comments) did not differ significantly among source types (p > 0.05). In contrast, the content quality varied substantially. Videos produced by public institutions achieved the highest DISCERN, JAMA, and GQS values, whereas patient-experience-based videos demonstrated significantly lower quality and reliability (p < 0.001). Engagement metrics were strongly intercorrelated but showed no association with quality scores.
conclusionYouTube videos related to esophageal cancer frequently exhibit moderate informational quality, and popularity metrics do not reflect content reliability. Source credibility plays a critical role in determining video quality, underscoring the need for greater involvement of healthcare professionals and public institutions in digital health content production.
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.