ArticleProstate international2026
Dissemination of misleading and biased information about benign prostate hyperplasia on YouTube in the Republic of Korea.
Article in Prostate international, 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
Background: YouTube, a social media platform with over one billion users worldwide, has become a prominent source for health information among the public. Many individuals now turn to YouTube when seeking medical knowledge. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of health information presented in videos concerning benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) on YouTube. Methods: We conducted a quality assessment of BPH-related content on YouTube in the Republic of Korea, analyzing the 100 most-viewed videos. The validated DISCERN instrument, a standardized tool for evaluating consumer health information, was used. DISCERN consists of 16 questions, each scored on a five-point scale (1 = poor, 2 = generally poor, 3 = moderate, 4 = good, 5 = excellent). Results: The top 100 videos collectively accumulated 24.7 million views, with a median of 89,764 views per video and a median of 1,100 thumbs up per video. The mean DISCERN score for overall quality was 2.8, indicating a moderate level of information quality. Videos uploaded by urologists working in university hospitals and those posted by laypersons had a comparable number of views per video, while the latter received more thumbs up per video (2,752 vs 4,012). Fifty-two videos (52%) contained potentially misleading or commercially biased content, accumulating a total of 16.4 million views (3,15,456 views per video) and 5,182 thumbs up per video. A significant negative correlation was found between overall quality and views per month (r = -0.38, Conclusions: Low quality and layperson-generated YouTube videos on BPH gained more engagement than high-quality content. This highlights the paradoxical appeal of misleading and biased information and the need for stronger involvement of healthcare professionals to promote accurate and unbiased resources online.
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.