Scholarlink

Background <p>Esophageal cancer is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality worldwide and is frequently diagnosed at advanced stages, leading patients and their relatives to seek health-related information beyond traditional clinical encounters. In recent years, YouTube has become a popular source of medical information. Nevertheless, questions persist regarding the accuracy, credibility, and overall reliability of the content available on the platform.</p> Methods <p>This cross-sectional study evaluated publicly available YouTube videos related to esophageal cancer. Data were collected on December 3, 2025, using a browser without a user login to minimize algorithm-driven bias. Viewer engagement metrics (views, likes, and comments), source categories, and country of origin were recorded for each video. Content quality and reliability were assessed using the DISCERN instrument, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, and Global Quality Score (GQS). Non-parametric statistical analyses were used to compare quality outcomes across source categories and evaluate the correlations between the engagement metrics and quality scores.</p> Results <p>A total of 78 videos met the inclusion criteria, most of which originated in the USA (83.3%). Health-related channels constituted the largest source category (35.9%), followed by patient experience-based videos (23.1%), and private institutions (20.5%). Viewer engagement metrics (views, likes, and comments) did not differ significantly among source types (p &gt; 0.05). In contrast, the content quality varied substantially. Videos produced by public institutions achieved the highest DISCERN, JAMA, and GQS values, whereas patient-experience-based videos demonstrated significantly lower quality and reliability (p &lt; 0.001). Engagement metrics were strongly intercorrelated but showed no association with quality scores.</p> Conclusion <p>YouTube videos related to esophageal cancer frequently exhibit moderate informational quality, and popularity metrics do not reflect content reliability. Source credibility plays a critical role in determining video quality, underscoring the need for greater involvement of healthcare professionals and public institutions in digital health content production.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Quality, Reliability, and Viewer Engagement of YouTube Videos on Esophageal Cancer: A Cross-Sectional Study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月22日

查看全文
  • Sedat Carkit,
  • Mustafa Karaagac

摘要

Background

Esophageal cancer is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality worldwide and is frequently diagnosed at advanced stages, leading patients and their relatives to seek health-related information beyond traditional clinical encounters. In recent years, YouTube has become a popular source of medical information. Nevertheless, questions persist regarding the accuracy, credibility, and overall reliability of the content available on the platform.

Methods

This cross-sectional study evaluated publicly available YouTube videos related to esophageal cancer. Data were collected on December 3, 2025, using a browser without a user login to minimize algorithm-driven bias. Viewer engagement metrics (views, likes, and comments), source categories, and country of origin were recorded for each video. Content quality and reliability were assessed using the DISCERN instrument, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, and Global Quality Score (GQS). Non-parametric statistical analyses were used to compare quality outcomes across source categories and evaluate the correlations between the engagement metrics and quality scores.

Results

A total of 78 videos met the inclusion criteria, most of which originated in the USA (83.3%). Health-related channels constituted the largest source category (35.9%), followed by patient experience-based videos (23.1%), and private institutions (20.5%). Viewer engagement metrics (views, likes, and comments) did not differ significantly among source types (p > 0.05). In contrast, the content quality varied substantially. Videos produced by public institutions achieved the highest DISCERN, JAMA, and GQS values, whereas patient-experience-based videos demonstrated significantly lower quality and reliability (p < 0.001). Engagement metrics were strongly intercorrelated but showed no association with quality scores.

Conclusion

YouTube videos related to esophageal cancer frequently exhibit moderate informational quality, and popularity metrics do not reflect content reliability. Source credibility plays a critical role in determining video quality, underscoring the need for greater involvement of healthcare professionals and public institutions in digital health content production.