ArticleCentral European journal of urology2026
YouTube and TikTok as patient resources: assessment of online video content on extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.
Article in Central European journal of urology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Our objective was to determine the content, reliability, and quality of YouTube and TikTok videos related to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). Material and methods: The key word "shock wave lithotripsy" was searched on YouTube and TikTok in July 2025 and the first 100 videos on both platforms were watched. Video characteristics were documented, and each video was independently evaluated by two urologists using a custom-designed comprehensiveness scale, along with the modified DISCERN and Global Quality Scale (GQS). Results: Sixty-five YouTube and 23 TikTok videos met the inclusion criteria. While YouTube videos were longer in duration (p <0.001), TikTok videos achieved a significantly greater median view count (p = 0.048). YouTube videos demonstrated significantly higher scores on the comprehensiveness scale, modified DISCERN, and GQS compared to TikTok videos, respectively (p = 0.001, p <0.001, p = 0.002). Most narrators were urologists (54.5%), and their videos scored significantly higher GQS compared to others (p = 0.001). Comprehensiveness scale modified DISCERN and GQS scores were significantly positively correlated with duration of video (p <0.001). The scales demonstrated positive intercorrelations among themselves (p <0.001). Conclusions: YouTube videos about SWL were of higher quality, reliability, and comprehensiveness than TikTok videos, although TikTok content attracted more viewers. The results emphasize that popularity does not equate to accuracy and underscore the importance of increasing the availability of high-quality, expert-led educational content across social media 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.