ArticleCentral European journal of urology2026
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy on YouTube: Valuable educational resource for urologists and patients or misleading information?
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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: To evaluate the quality, reliability, and educational value of YouTube videos related to percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), with a specific focus on the content available for urologists and patients seeking information online. Material and methods: A systematic YouTube search using the key words "PCNL" and "percutaneous nephrolithotomy" was conducted. Videos were included if they were in English, had audio, and were relevant to PCNL. Two expert urologists independently evaluated each video. Collected data included upload year, video length, content type, target audience, source, geographic origin, and surgical position. The quality of the videos was assessed using the DISCERN instrument and Global Quality Score (GQS). Results: Of 65 identified videos, 26 met inclusion criteria. Most were aimed at healthcare professionals (84.6%) and were uploaded by physicians (65.4%). Only 15.4% were patient-oriented. The prone position was depicted in 84.6% of videos. The median duration was 7 minutes 58 seconds. The median view ratio was 102.3 views/day. The median DISCERN score was 2 (IQR 1), and the median GQS score was 3 (IQR 1.375), reflecting moderate educational quality. Conclusions: YouTube contains a moderate-quality body of PCNL videos primarily designed for professional audiences. There is a clear shortage of reliable, patient-centered educational content. Healthcare organizations and scientific societies should proactively develop and promote accessible, high-quality educational resources for patients.
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.