Assessment of YouTube videos on post-dural puncture headache: a cross-sectional study.

IF 2.3 3区生物学 Q2 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES

PeerJ Pub Date : 2025-03-19 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.7717/peerj.19151

Seher İlhan, Turan Evran

{"title":"Assessment of YouTube videos on post-dural puncture headache: a cross-sectional study.","authors":"Seher İlhan, Turan Evran","doi":"10.7717/peerj.19151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) is a common complication of central neuroaxis anesthesia or analgesia, causing severe headaches. YouTube is widely used for health information, but the reliability and quality of PDPH-related content are unclear. This study evaluates the content adequacy, reliability, and quality of YouTube videos on PDPH.Methods: This cross-sectional study analyzed English-language YouTube videos on PDPH with good audiovisual quality. Two independent reviewers assessed the videos using the DISCERN instrument, Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, and Global Quality Scale (GQS). Correlations between video characteristics and their reliability, content adequacy, and quality scores were examined.Results: Out of 71 videos, 42.3% were uploaded by health-related websites, 36.6% by physicians, and 21.1% by patients. Strong correlations were found between DISCERN, JAMA, and GQS scores (p < 0.001). Videos from physicians and health-related websites had significantly higher scores than those from patients (p < 0.001). No significant correlations were observed between descriptive characteristics and scores (p > 0.05).Conclusion: YouTube videos on PDPH uploaded by health-related websites or physicians are more reliable, adequate, and higher in quality than those uploaded by patients. Source credibility is crucial for evaluating medical information on YouTube.","PeriodicalId":19799,"journal":{"name":"PeerJ","volume":"13 ","pages":"e19151"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11929503/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PeerJ","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.19151","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) is a common complication of central neuroaxis anesthesia or analgesia, causing severe headaches. YouTube is widely used for health information, but the reliability and quality of PDPH-related content are unclear. This study evaluates the content adequacy, reliability, and quality of YouTube videos on PDPH.

Methods: This cross-sectional study analyzed English-language YouTube videos on PDPH with good audiovisual quality. Two independent reviewers assessed the videos using the DISCERN instrument, Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, and Global Quality Scale (GQS). Correlations between video characteristics and their reliability, content adequacy, and quality scores were examined.

Results: Out of 71 videos, 42.3% were uploaded by health-related websites, 36.6% by physicians, and 21.1% by patients. Strong correlations were found between DISCERN, JAMA, and GQS scores (p < 0.001). Videos from physicians and health-related websites had significantly higher scores than those from patients (p < 0.001). No significant correlations were observed between descriptive characteristics and scores (p > 0.05).

Conclusion: YouTube videos on PDPH uploaded by health-related websites or physicians are more reliable, adequate, and higher in quality than those uploaded by patients. Source credibility is crucial for evaluating medical information on YouTube.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

PeerJ MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES-

CiteScore

4.70

自引率

3.70%

发文量

1665

审稿时长

10 weeks

期刊介绍： PeerJ is an open access peer-reviewed scientific journal covering research in the biological and medical sciences. At PeerJ, authors take out a lifetime publication plan (for as little as $99) which allows them to publish articles in the journal for free, forever. PeerJ has 5 Nobel Prize Winners on the Board; they have won several industry and media awards; and they are widely recognized as being one of the most interesting recent developments in academic publishing.