ArticlePediatric transplantation2026
How Well Do "Dr. Google" and "Professor YouTube" Answer Health Questions for Pediatric Kidney Transplant Recipients and Caregivers?
Article in Pediatric transplantation, 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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPediatric kidney transplant recipients and their caregivers require comprehensive education to support self-management. Increasingly, families supplement clinic teaching with online platforms such as Google and YouTube, yet the quality, readability, and usefulness of these resources are uncertain.
methodsStructured searches on Google and YouTube were conducted using patient-style questions and medically oriented key terms across four prioritized topics: healthy eating, exercise, travel, and mental health. Resources were screened for relevance and assessed for accuracy, completeness (defined as including all key facts needed to support recommendations), readability, and actionability (defined as providing clear, practical steps users can follow). Two pediatric transplant healthcare providers independently reviewed each resource. Two researchers assessed understandability and actionability using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT), and readability using multiple readability tools.
resultsSearches yielded 87 Google and 41 YouTube resources; most targeted adult transplant recipients. Healthcare providers assessed 65% of Google and 68% of YouTube resources to be accurate, but only 18% and 5% were factually complete. Actionable recommendations were identified in 42% (Google) and 29% (YouTube). Readability ranged from grade 5 to 17, with only 6 of 82 Google resources meeting the recommended grade 6 or lower. Mean understandability scores were 67% for both platforms. Actionability scores averaged 39% (Google) and 77% (YouTube). Resources suitable for pediatric audiences (n = 28) had similar readability and understandability scores but slightly higher actionability (Google: 43%, YouTube: 81%). Most resources lacked pediatric focus, co-creation, and practical guidance.
conclusionsOnline searches generated limited high-quality resources tailored to pediatric needs. Healthcare providers should guide families to vetted resources and consider co-creating materials to improve relevance and impact.
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.