Minerva urology and nephrology · 2025
A systematic review assessing the reliability of studies focusing on urological content on YouTube.
Систематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Collà Ruvolo Claudia, Morra Simone, Di Bello Francesco, Cilio Simone, Fraia Agostino, Polverino Federico, Creta Massimiliano, Longo Nicola, Imbimbo Ciro, Checcucci Enrico, Puliatti Stefano, Dell'oglio Paolo, Califano Gianluigi
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: In recent years, several publications have focused on analyzing the quality of medical content on YouTube. The current systematic review aimed to summarize and analyze the available studies examining YouTube video content in the urological field.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: This is a systematic review including studies examining urological content uploaded on the YouTube platform published before November 2023. The following keywords were combined to capture relevant publications with a title/abstract search: ("Urology" OR "Andrology") AND ("YouTube" OR "Social media").
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: According to the inclusion criteria, 84 studies were included. Of all, 74 (88%) studies were published after the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak. A total of 52 (62%) studies used the DISCERN score, 29 (35%) the PEMAT A/V score, 30 (36%) the GQS, 23 (27%) the Misinformation score, 14 (17%) the Likert scale, and 13 (15%) the JAMA score. According to the conclusion, 62 (74%) studies reported poor quality results. Among all, only 10 (12%) studies respected our criteria of best quality methodology, defined as: 1) description of the research time frame; 2) use of incognito status; 3) the description of the inter-rater variability between reviewers; 4) use of at least one quality assessment tool.
CONCLUSIONS: The systematic review highlights significant variability in results and methodologies across studies on the quality analysis of urological content on YouTube. The official urological community should establish guidelines for authors, aiming to enhance the reliability and importance of such publications as valuable resources for daily clinical practice.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: This is a systematic review including studies examining urological content uploaded on the YouTube platform published before November 2023. The following keywords were combined to capture relevant publications with a title/abstract search: ("Urology" OR "Andrology") AND ("YouTube" OR "Social media").
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: According to the inclusion criteria, 84 studies were included. Of all, 74 (88%) studies were published after the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak. A total of 52 (62%) studies used the DISCERN score, 29 (35%) the PEMAT A/V score, 30 (36%) the GQS, 23 (27%) the Misinformation score, 14 (17%) the Likert scale, and 13 (15%) the JAMA score. According to the conclusion, 62 (74%) studies reported poor quality results. Among all, only 10 (12%) studies respected our criteria of best quality methodology, defined as: 1) description of the research time frame; 2) use of incognito status; 3) the description of the inter-rater variability between reviewers; 4) use of at least one quality assessment tool.
CONCLUSIONS: The systematic review highlights significant variability in results and methodologies across studies on the quality analysis of urological content on YouTube. The official urological community should establish guidelines for authors, aiming to enhance the reliability and importance of such publications as valuable resources for daily clinical practice.