An examination of the quality of kidney stone information on YouTube and TikTok.

IF 2 2区 医学 Q2 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Zuzanna Augustyn, Helen L Richards, Alice McGrath, Yvonne Swanton, Derek B Hennessey
{"title":"An examination of the quality of kidney stone information on YouTube and TikTok.","authors":"Zuzanna Augustyn, Helen L Richards, Alice McGrath, Yvonne Swanton, Derek B Hennessey","doi":"10.1007/s00240-025-01713-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Social media is increasingly consulted by patients for health-related information. The quality of this information is unknown and unregulated. This study aimed to investigate the quality of kidney stones information on two popular video platforms, YouTube and TikTok, and examine factors related to its quality. A search using keywords of \"kidney stones\" alongside \"information, prevention, treatment\" was used across YouTube and TikTok. The top 50 videos on each platform were rated by 4 independent reviewers on: general information, epidemiology, symptoms/presentation, treatment, and prevention. The American Urological Association's kidney stone curriculum was utilised as the benchmark for quality. The total number of views across the 100 videos was over 46 million. Overall, 91% of videos were educational in terms of genre. Misinformation was present in 34% of TikTok and 2% of YouTube videos. YouTube received significantly higher quality ratings across all parameters bar prevention (z's>-4.79 p's < 0.001); however, less than 50% of YouTube videos were rated as good quality. There was no association between quality and the number of likes or views across platforms (p's > 0.3). The quality of information presented across platforms was very variable with over half of videos considered poor quality. Given the high usage of social media as a source of health information it is important that healthcare providers and the general public are aware of the limits of information available on both platforms and continued efforts are made to develop high quality videos suitable for patient consumption.</p>","PeriodicalId":23411,"journal":{"name":"Urolithiasis","volume":"53 1","pages":"40"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11861121/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urolithiasis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-025-01713-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Social media is increasingly consulted by patients for health-related information. The quality of this information is unknown and unregulated. This study aimed to investigate the quality of kidney stones information on two popular video platforms, YouTube and TikTok, and examine factors related to its quality. A search using keywords of "kidney stones" alongside "information, prevention, treatment" was used across YouTube and TikTok. The top 50 videos on each platform were rated by 4 independent reviewers on: general information, epidemiology, symptoms/presentation, treatment, and prevention. The American Urological Association's kidney stone curriculum was utilised as the benchmark for quality. The total number of views across the 100 videos was over 46 million. Overall, 91% of videos were educational in terms of genre. Misinformation was present in 34% of TikTok and 2% of YouTube videos. YouTube received significantly higher quality ratings across all parameters bar prevention (z's>-4.79 p's < 0.001); however, less than 50% of YouTube videos were rated as good quality. There was no association between quality and the number of likes or views across platforms (p's > 0.3). The quality of information presented across platforms was very variable with over half of videos considered poor quality. Given the high usage of social media as a source of health information it is important that healthcare providers and the general public are aware of the limits of information available on both platforms and continued efforts are made to develop high quality videos suitable for patient consumption.

检查YouTube和TikTok上肾结石信息的质量。
越来越多的患者通过社交媒体获取与健康相关的信息。这些信息的质量是未知和不受监管的。这项研究旨在调查两个流行视频平台YouTube和TikTok上肾结石信息的质量,并研究与质量相关的因素。在YouTube和TikTok上,人们使用“肾结石”和“信息、预防、治疗”等关键词进行搜索。每个平台上排名前50位的视频由4位独立评审员从一般信息、流行病学、症状/表现、治疗和预防四个方面进行评分。美国泌尿学协会的肾结石课程被用作质量的基准。这100个视频的总浏览量超过了4600万。总体而言,91%的视频属于教育类型。34%的TikTok视频和2%的YouTube视频存在错误信息。YouTube在除预防外的所有参数中都获得了更高的质量评级(z的>-4.79 p的0.3)。跨平台呈现的信息质量差异很大,超过一半的视频被认为质量很差。鉴于社交媒体作为卫生信息来源的使用率很高,医疗保健提供者和公众必须意识到这两个平台上可用信息的局限性,并继续努力开发适合患者消费的高质量视频。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Urolithiasis
Urolithiasis UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
6.50%
发文量
74
期刊介绍: Official Journal of the International Urolithiasis Society The journal aims to publish original articles in the fields of clinical and experimental investigation only within the sphere of urolithiasis and its related areas of research. The journal covers all aspects of urolithiasis research including the diagnosis, epidemiology, pathogenesis, genetics, clinical biochemistry, open and non-invasive surgical intervention, nephrological investigation, chemistry and prophylaxis of the disorder. The Editor welcomes contributions on topics of interest to urologists, nephrologists, radiologists, clinical biochemists, epidemiologists, nutritionists, basic scientists and nurses working in that field. Contributions may be submitted as full-length articles or as rapid communications in the form of Letters to the Editor. Articles should be original and should contain important new findings from carefully conducted studies designed to produce statistically significant data. Please note that we no longer publish articles classified as Case Reports. Editorials and review articles may be published by invitation from the Editorial Board. All submissions are peer-reviewed. Through an electronic system for the submission and review of manuscripts, the Editor and Associate Editors aim to make publication accessible as quickly as possible to a large number of readers throughout the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信