Are allergic conjunctivitis videos on YouTube a reliable source of information?

ABSTRACT

Background

Social media as well as YouTube are widely used to gain information on medical conditions. We aimed to assess and evaluate the quality and reliability of YouTube videos on ocular allergies and determine whether they are a trustworthy source of information.

Research design and methods

The first 60 videos from the search terms ‘allergic conjunctivitis’, ‘atopic conjunctivitis’, ‘allergic conjunctivitis symptoms’, and ‘allergic conjunctivitis eye drops’ were analyzed using modified DISCERN, Global Quality Score, Journal of the American Medical Association scores, and Health on the Net Code criteria. The total number of views, view ratio, likes, comments, and duration were recorded, and videos were evaluated as useful, non-useful, and misleading.

Results

The average mDISCERN score for the videos was 3.25 ± 0.76 (moderate), the average JAMA score was 2.76 ± 0.64 (intermediate), the average GQS score was 3.13 ± 0.8 (intermediate), and the average HONcode score was 7.8 ± 2.6 (intermediate). The most common video source was health professionals (61.9%).

Conclusions

Videos on allergic conjunctivitis while having reliable publishers are of moderate quality. Quality regulation of content uploaded on allergic conjunctivitis is needed. Health professionals should try to improve video content and provide more information on the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis.

KEYWORDS:

• Allergic diseases
• YouTube
• ocular allergy
• allergic conjunctivitis
• mDISCERN
• JAMA
• GQS
• HONcode

Declaration of interests

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties

Author contribution statement: All authors contributed to the conception and design of the article and interpreting the relevant literature, all authors were involved in writing the article and/or revised it for intellectual content.

Reviewer disclosures

Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.

Additional information

Funding

This paper was not funded.