ArticleCureus2026
Comparison of YouTube Videos and Artificial Intelligence Chatbot Responses Regarding Pediatric Pelvic Floor Dysfunction: A Cross-Sectional Infodemiology Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
backgroundPediatric pelvic floor dysfunction is a common cause of lower urinary tract symptoms and bowel dysfunction in children, requiring accurate and reliable educational resources for patients and caregivers. With the increasing use of online health information, both YouTube (Google LLC, Mountain View, CA, USA) and artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots have become frequently used sources of medical guidance. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the educational quality, reliability, and safety of YouTube videos and AI-generated responses related to pediatric pelvic floor dysfunction. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this cross-sectional infodemiology study, YouTube was searched using five predefined pediatric pelvic floor-related search terms, and the first 50 videos for each term were screened. After duplicate removal and eligibility assessment, 25 videos were included for analysis. Three publicly available AI chatbots (ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA, USA), Gemini (Google LLC, Mountain View, CA, USA), and Copilot (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA)) were evaluated using a standardized set of 20 pediatric pelvic floor-related questions. Educational quality was independently assessed using the DISCERN instrument, the Global Quality Scale (GQS), and the Pediatric Pelvic Floor Education and Reliability Score (PPFERS), a pediatric-specific assessment tool developed for this study.
resultsThe 25 included YouTube videos accumulated 447,398 total views. Physiotherapists or pediatric physical therapists were the most common content creators (44.0%), followed by healthcare institutions (28.0%). The mean DISCERN, GQS, and PPFERS scores for YouTube videos were 66.24 ± 8.64, 4.28 ± 0.74, and 16.88 ± 1.96, respectively. Among AI chatbots, Gemini achieved the highest educational quality scores (76.00 ± 1.92, 4.95 ± 0.22, and 19.35 ± 0.59), followed by ChatGPT (74.20 ± 2.40, 4.85 ± 0.37, and 18.60 ± 0.82) and Copilot (67.85 ± 2.03, 4.35 ± 0.49, and 17.10 ± 0.72). Overall, AI-generated responses demonstrated higher mean educational quality scores than the YouTube video cohort.
conclusionsBoth YouTube videos and AI-generated responses provided generally useful educational information regarding pediatric pelvic floor dysfunction. However, AI chatbots, particularly Gemini and ChatGPT, demonstrated greater educational consistency and closer alignment with contemporary pediatric urotherapy principles. AI-assisted educational tools may serve as valuable adjuncts to patient and caregiver education but should complement, rather than replace, professional medical evaluation and individualized clinical guidance.
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.