YouTube is inadequate as an information source on delayed ejaculation

YouTube™ as a source of information on prostatitis: a quality and reliability analysis

It was aimed to analyze the YouTube™ videos on prostatitis regarding their source, content, and information included. The term "prostatitis" was searched by relevance and the first 200 video links and features were recorded. Using the 5-point modified DISCERN tool, Global Quality Score (GQS), and Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) score, the quality and reliability of the information were assessed by two urologists. Inter-rater agreement for DISCERN, JAMA, and GQS had Cohen's kappa coefficients of 0.883, 0.887, and 0.885, respectively. The most common source of upload was doctors/medical institutions (33.0%), and the majority of the content was about general information (27.0%). The mean modified DISCERN, GQS and JAMA scores were 3.24 ± 1.23 (1.00-5.00), 3.25 ± 1.26 (1.00-5.00) and 2.17 ± 1.36 (0.00-4.00), respectively. These scores were correlated with each other (r = 0.914, p < 0.001 between JAMA and GQS; r = 0.954, p < 0.001 between JAMA and modified DISCERN; and r = 0.885, p < 0.001 between GQS and modified DISCERN, Spearman test) and were the highest in the videos uploaded by doctors/medical institutions (p < 0.001, Kruskal-Wallis test). Of the videos, 25.5% were poor, 30.5% were moderate and 44.0% were high quality. The high quality videos were significantly shorter than those with poor quality (p = 0.039, Kruskal-Wallis test). The poor quality videos had the highest view ratio (50.49 ± 127.74 (0.03-618.91), p = 0.036, Kruskal-Wallis test). Most YouTube™ videos on prostatitis are short and high quality videos uploaded by doctors/medical institutions. However, these videos have less view ratios than those with poor quality.

The impact of misinformation on patient perceptions at a men's health clinic: a cross-sectional study

Misinformation is a rising concern for providers and patients alike. We aimed to assess where patients acquire information prior to their andrological urologic appointment and assess patients' perception regarding the reliability of this information. A cross-sectional study was conducted at an outpatient men's health clinic between June and August of 2022 with questionnaires distributed to adult males seen for their primary visit. The study included 314 consenting adult patients who independently completed the questionnaire (mean age: 51.2 ± 17.2). Overall, 55.1% of patients indicated they searched for their condition online. However, 39.2% and 27.7% of respondents agreed and strongly agreed, respectively, that misinformation is a concern when searching for health information. Only 59.9% of patients discussed their concerns with others and those that did not chose not wanting to (65.1%) as their top choice. However, 27.4% of respondents were embarrassed to do so. Finally, 38.2% and 12.4% of patients agreed and strongly agreed, that learning information prior to your appointment affects their relationship with the physician. These findings emphasize the need for urologists to be aware of where their patients are gathering health information and to address concerns regarding misinformation.

The spreading information of YouTube videos on Phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors: a worrisome picture from one of the most consulted internet source

Several previous studies on YouTubeTM information on medical topics have already been published. The current study aimed to evaluate the quality information of YouTubeTM videos on Phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors (PDE5-is). A systematic search on YouTube™ was conducted using 30 keyword combinations. For each keyword's combination, the first 50 videos were recorded. The quality of videos on YouTube™ was assessed with Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for audio-visual content (PEMAT A/V), DISCERN score and a specified created Misinformation tool. According to the selection criteria, 229 YouTube™ videos were suitable for the analyses. Videos were stratified according to the five main identified topics: sildenafil [n = 98; 42.79%] vs tadalafil [n = 50; 21.83%] vs vardenafil [n = 44;19.21%] vs avanafil [n = 17; 7.42%] vs PDE5-is in general [n = 20; 8.73%]. The median overall PEMAT A/V Understandability score and Actionability score were 55% (interquartile range [IQR]: 42-75) and 0% (IQR = 0-67), respectively. Specifically, according to our stratification, YouTube Videos on avanafil reached higher values of both Understandability and Actionability (72.7% and 66.7, respectively) in contrast to other categories. According to DISCERN tool, the total overall median score was 29.5 (IQR = 18-41). According to Misinformation scale, the item 1 ('sexual stimulation') harboured an overall median score of 2 (IQR = 1-2); the item 2 ('side effects') an overall median score of 2 (IQR = 1-3); the item 3 ('treatment choices') an overall median score of 1 (IQR = 1-2); the item 4 ('contraindications') an overall median score of 2 (IQR = 1-2). YouTube™ is a fast and open-access source for mass information. The overall quality of the PDE5-is contents provided is sadly unsatisfactory. Nowadays, YouTube™ cannot be recommended as a reliable source of information on PDE5-is.

Size matters: characterizing penile augmentation content from the 100 most popular YouTube videos

Aesthetic penile augmentation is considered investigational and not shown to be safe or efficacious. This study sought to characterize the quality and reliability of YouTube videos on the topic of penile augmentation. A systematic search identifying the 100 most viewed YouTube videos on penile augmentation was conducted. The videos were then evaluated by two independent urologists for reliability and quality using a modified DISCERN scoring system and Global Quality Scale (GQS). The median total views were 530,612 (range 123,478-32,914,713). The median DISCERN and GQS scores for all 100 videos were generally poor at 1.75 (IQR 1-2.63) and 2.5 (IQR 1.5-3.5), respectively. A little under half of the videos had a physician present (44.7%). DISCERN and GQS scores were significantly higher in videos with physicians compared to those without one (p < 0.001 for both). The majority of videos discussed nonsurgical methods of penile augmentation (65.1%) with penile traction devices being the most frequently discussed (19.2%). Urologists and medical organizations should strive to have more of a presence in this space to ensure patients are appropriately educated and counseled before pursuing potentially ineffective or harmful treatments.