Quality of English-language videos available on YouTube as a source of information on osteoporosis

Abstract

Osteoporosis awareness is essential for preventing osteoporotic fractures. Social media platforms have enormous potential to both support and deter patients' decisions on healthcare. The current study demonstrated that the majority of YouTube videos on osteoporosis provide useful information with sufficient quality. Purpose YouTube is the most popular video-sharing platform for patients seeking online information about their medical condition. However, there are concerns regarding the accuracy and quality of YouTube content. We aimed to analyze the quality of English-language YouTube videos on osteoporosis. Methods A YouTube search was performed on April 21, 2021, using the keywords "osteoporosis," "osteoporosis exercise," "osteoporosis diet," and "osteoporosis treatment." The reviewers recorded the content, source, and detailed characteristics of the included videos. The reliability and quality of the videos were analyzed using the modified DISCERN score and Global Quality Scale (GQS) score by a rheumatologist and endocrinologist. Results Of the 400 videos screened, 238 were included in the study after applying the exclusion criteria. A total of 205 (86.1%) videos revealed useful information about osteoporosis whereas 33 (13.9%) were misleading. In terms of quality, 48% of the videos were of high quality, 34% were of moderate quality, and 18% were of low quality. The videos posted by universities and professional organizations had the highest modified DISCERN and GQS scores indicating high reliability and quality. Conclusion This study demonstrated that the majority of YouTube videos on osteoporosis contained useful information with sufficient quality. However, physicians should be aware of misleading information and correct any misinformation during face-to-face meetings with patients. YouTube should consider creating partnerships with professional organizations in the field of osteoporosis to produce high-quality videos in line with their new health content policy.

Assessing Laryngectomy Patient Education on YouTube: Investigating Quality and Reliability

“…However, these findings are consistent with previous studies which have found comparably low DISCERN scores when evaluating content on YouTube about other otolaryngologic topics such as cholesteatoma, 26 hypoglossal nerve stimulation, 27 trigeminal neuralgia, 28 and functional endoscopic sinus surgery 29 . Low quality and reliability of content on YouTube has been reported in other specialties as well, 30,31 although videos about osteoporosis and keratoconus have been found to be of higher quality 32,33 . Thus, while it is certainly possible for health‐related videos to be of high quality, video topics meeting this requirement are the exception, not the norm.…”

Evaluation of YouTube As A Source For Graves' Disease Information: Is High‐Quality Guideline‐Based Information Available?

“…25,27,28 While good quality content is possible, it is not the standard for treatment-related videos on YouTube. 15,29 This study supports this phenomenon, as GD treatment videos demonstrated poor reliability, quality, and overall value according to the DISCERN instrument. These data are consistent with previous studies displaying low DISCERN scores for YouTube content on thyroid-related topics, such as thyroid cancer and hypothyroidism.…”

Educational quality of YouTube content on brachial plexus injury and treatment

“…The complex nature of BPI leads patients to often seek answers and consolation on social on YouTube should look toward providing content with peerreviewed sources (Osman et al, 2022). On the same note, videos in which there was a physician presenting the information had greater reliability and quality of information, lending credence to the idea that misleading information will generally come from for-profit healthrelated institutions and not primary providers, as noted in other studies (Onder et al, 2022) Unfortunately, however, views were being allocated to less reliable sources, as evidenced by results of the linear regression, leading to potential misinformation among patients. Ku et.…”