ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Decision-relevant patient information in YouTube videos on robotic surgery for endometriosis: a cross-sectional content analysis.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate decision-relevant content completeness, patient-oriented communication, and source transparency of YouTube videos on robotic surgery for endometriosis. Cross-sectional content analysis. Publicly accessible YouTube content identified through six English- and Turkish-language search strings in September 2026; the retained records document search dates for only a subset. Seventy-six fully accessible videos explicitly addressing robotic surgery for endometriosis, selected from 101 unique records after exclusion of inaccessible videos and records without confirmed eligibility. No clinical intervention. Two reviewers independently coded eligible videos using the study checklist and resolved differences by consensus; reviewer-specific ratings were not retained. In a post hoc strict recoding of the indication/patient-selection domain from retained video/page notes, 18 videos (23.7%) qualified; a broad surgery/candidacy reference was present in 73 (96.1%). The recalculated median DRCCI was 1 of 9 (IQR, 0-2); under a sensitivity rule counting any broad reference, the median was 2 (IQR, 1-3). Deep endometriosis and organ involvement were discussed in 29 (38.2%) and 25 (32.9%) videos; non-surgical options, comparison with laparoscopy, risks, fertility/ovarian reserve, recurrence, and multidisciplinary care were present in 5 (6.6%), 6 (7.9%), 7 (9.2%), 14 (18.4%), 2 (2.6%), and 5 (6.6%), respectively. Selected decision-relevant topics were infrequently present in this exploratory sample of public videos. Because intended audience and purpose were not classified, these findings do not establish that all videos were intended for patient counseling or that omissions affected viewers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42911433What 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.