A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

[Erectile dysfunction and YouTube: Quality of videos in Spanish]. | LitMetric

Introduction: Erectile dysfunction (ED) is one of the most prevalent urological diseases, but there is limited data about the quality of its information in social networks. The aim of our study was to assess the quality of ED information contained in YouTube videos.

Material And Methods: Descriptive study of the first 50 Spanish-language videos, published on YouTube, evaluated by three urologists. We used two validated questionnaires: PEMAT (Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool) and DISCERN. Videos were classified according to DISCERN score into poor or moderate-good quality.

Results: The median time duration was 2.42minutes (0.15-3.58), 94,197 views (2,313-3,027,890), 682.5 «likes» (0-54,020) and 39 «dislikes» (0-2843). The median of PEMAT score was 29% (9%-95.5%) in understandability and 29% (0-95.5%) in actionability. According to DISCERN score 27 videos (57.4%) had poor quality and 20 (42.6%) moderate-good quality. There were no significant differences between the two groups in time duration, views, «likes» or «dislikes». There were differences in PEMAT score in understandability and actionability. The 86.7% of the moderate-good quality videos were starred by health care provider (P=.001). Also, the 85.7% of videos that describes treatment had moderate-good quality (P=.001). The 84% of the non-medical videos had a poor quality (P=.001).

Conclusion: Most ED videos on YouTube have poor quality. The highest quality videos are those made by professionals, although they are not the most viewed. It would be important to develop measures to prevent the spread of misinformation among social network users.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.androl.2023.100351DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

quality videos
12
poor quality
12
moderate-good quality
12
quality
10
videos
9
discern score
8
time duration
8
pemat score
8
[erectile dysfunction
4
youtube
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!