Evidence‐based quality and accuracy of YouTube videos about nephrolithiasis

Abstract

Objective To assess the quality and accuracy of online videos about the medical management of nephrolithiasis. Materials and Methods To evaluate trends in online interest, we first examined the frequency of worldwide YouTube searches for ‘kidney stones’ from 2015 to 2020. We then queried YouTube with terms related to symptoms and treatment of kidney stones and analysed English‐language videos with >5000 views. Quality was assessed using the validated DISCERN instrument. Evidence‐based content analysis of video content and viewer comments was performed. Results Online searches for videos about kidney stones doubled between 2015 and 2019 (P < 0.001). We analysed 102 videos with a median (range) number of views of 46 539 (5024–3 631 322). The mean (sd) DISCERN score was 3.0 (1.4) out of 5, indicating ‘moderate’ quality; scores were significantly higher for the 21 videos (21%) authored by academic hospitals (mean 3.7 vs 2.8, P = 0.02). Inaccurate or non‐evidence‐based claims were identified in 23 videos (23%); none of the videos authored by academic institutions contained inaccurate claims. Videos with inaccurate statements had more than double the viewer engagement (viewer‐generated comments, ‘thumbs up’ and ‘thumbs down’ ratings) compared to videos without inaccuracies (P < 0.001). Among viewer comments, 43 videos (43%) included comments with inaccurate or non‐evidence‐based claims, and a large majority (82 videos, 80%) had ‘chatbot’ recommendations. Conclusions Interest in YouTube videos about nephrolithiasis has doubled since 2015. While highly viewed videos vary widely in quality and accuracy, videos produced by academic hospitals have significantly fewer inaccurate claims. Given the high prevalence of stone disease and poor‐quality videos, patients should be directed to evidence‐based content online.

Are HoLEP Surgical Videos on YouTube Biased and Misleading or Are They Leading the Industry?

“…In a study by Huang et al, there was no difference in the median number of viewers and viewer interaction according to low or high DISCERN scores. However, the authors observed that if a video had been uploaded by an academic hospital, it had a higher DISCERN score (19). Similarly, in our study, there was no difference between the DISCERN groups in terms of video viewing parameters.…”

“…Depending on the upload source of surgical videos on YouTube, the message conveyed to the viewer and its reliability may vary. In a study conducted by Huang et al, it was found that the videos that did not contain accurate information were viewed more and received more comments (19). In another study, it was proven that fake news or inaccurate content spread faster in the internet environment and created more interaction (20).…”

Which developments in urology have you missed amongst all the COVID‐19 papers?

“…The authors conclude that patients should be discouraged from using non-academic videos, but the apps on fluid management, although sometimes expensive, are useful in supporting long-term management. 2,3 There were similar findings in a search of YouTube for information on the surgical treatment of benign prostatic hypertrophy. Eighty-seven per cent of 159 videos contained misinformation and none were scored as having good overall quality.…”

Personal protective equipment in Covid-19: Evidence-based quality and analysis of YouTube videos after one year of pandemic

“…The DISCERN instrument is a validated tool used to evaluate the good quality evidence-based and the reliability of the information given (29,30). The original version of the DISCERN tool, made by The British Library, was used for the study (31).…”