149
Views
2
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Research

Is the information about lateral epicondylitis on the YouTube platform reliable and of good quality?

ORCID Icon &
Pages 458-462 | Received 21 Jul 2022, Accepted 21 Sep 2022, Published online: 29 Sep 2022
 

ABSTRACT

Objectives

This study aimed to investigate the quality and reliability of YouTube videos, as a source of lateral epicondylitis (LE).

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, 484 videos were analyzed by searching the YouTube platform with the keyword ‘lateral epicondylitis.’ Journal of the Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, modified DISCERN and Global Quality Scale (GQS) were used for quality and reliability assessments.

Results

A total of 298 videos were evaluated. High quality (GQS 4–5) was identified in 74 videos (24.8%), intermediate quality (GQS 3) in 84 videos (28.2%), and low quality (GQS 1–2) in 140 videos (47%). Of the videos, 57.7% (n = 41) uploaded by physician were of high quality. A significant difference was found between the low-intermediate-high-quality groups in terms of duration, number of views, number of likes, number of comments, likes per day, comments per day, video view ratio, JAMA score and modified DISCERN score (all p < 0.01). In videos uploaded by physicians; views, time since uploaded, JAMA score, modified DISCERN score, and GQS score were significantly higher than videos shared by trainers, health-related web sites, and independent users. The duration and viewing rates of the videos, the number of views, likes, comments, likes per day and comments per day were found to be significantly associated with JAMA, modified DISCERN, and GQS scores (p < 0.01).

Conclusion

About half of YouTube videos for LE were low quality. Most of the high-quality videos have been shared by physicians and these videos have been longer, more viewed, more liked and commented, and more reliable. Healthcare professionals should provide high-quality, unbiased, accurate and instructive information that is accessible to everyone on the YouTube platform.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s)

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 61.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 666.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.