SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Acta Medica Alanya / 2026 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1

How Reliable is YouTube Regarding Testicular Cancer? What Has Changed Over Time?

Testis Kanseri ile İlgili YouTube Ne Kadar Güvenilir? Zaman İçinde Ne Değişti?

Ümit Uysal(Department of Urology, Health Sciences University Adana City Training and Research Hospital, Adana, Turkey)0000-0002-9340-4260
Emin Gürtan(Department of Urology, Bayburt State Hospital, Bayburt, Turkey)0000-0002-1992-3556
Murat Uçar(Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Antalya, Turkey)0000-0002-8690-0485
Pages
21–28
Publication Date
2026-04-25
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Additionally, no significant change in video quality was observed after the pandemic.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: Our study aimed to evaluate the reliability and quality of YouTube videos related to testicular cancer and assess changes in their quality over time.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Method: In July 2024, this study retrospectively analyzed publicly accessible YouTube videos.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Additionally, no significant change in video quality was observed after the pandemic.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2024 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Hasta Eğitimi · İnternet · Sağlık iletişimi

Abstract

Aim: Our study aimed to evaluate the reliability and quality of YouTube videos related to testicular cancer and assess changes in their quality over time. Method: In July 2024, this study retrospectively analyzed publicly accessible YouTube videos. The first 172 videos retrieved using the keyword “testicular cancer” were evaluated. The videos were analyzed and scored using the modified DISCERN, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), and Global Quality Scale (GQS) scoring systems. After applying the exclusion criteria, 151 videos were included in the final analysis. Results: The most common sources of the videos were health information websites and individual physicians/urologists. In our study, the mean JAMA, modified DISCERN, and mean GQS scores were 1.01 ± 0.92, 1.73 ± 1.32, and 1.79 ± 0.92, respectively. The average duration of videos uploaded after the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic was significantly longer, whereas the average number of views was higher for videos uploaded during or before the pandemic. However, no statistically significant differences were found between the two periods in terms of JAMA, GQS, and modified DISCERN scores. Additionally, a positive correlation was observed between video duration and the modified DISCERN, JAMA, and GQS scores. Conclusion: Our study demonstrated that the quality of YouTube videos related to testicular cancer has not improved over time, and the production of low-quality content continues. Additionally, no significant change in video quality was observed after the pandemic.

Özet

Amaç: Çalışmamızın amacı, YouTube’daki testis kanseri ile ilgili videoların güvenilirlik ve kalitesini değerlendirmek ve zaman içindeki kalite değişimini belirlemektir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu çalışma, Temmuz 2024’te YouTube’da herkese açık videoların geriye dönük incelenmesiyle gerçekleştirildi. “testis kanseri” anahtar kelimesiyle yapılan aramada çıkan ilk 172 video değerlendirildi. Videolar, modified DISCERN, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) ve Global Quality (GQ) skorlama sistemleriyle analiz edildi. Dahil edilmeme kriterleri doğrultusunda yapılan eleme sonrası 151 video analiz edildi. Bulgular: Toplam 151 video analiz edildi. Videoların en yaygın kaynakları sağlık bilgisi web siteleri ve bireysel hekimler/ürologlardı. Çalışmamızda JAMA skor ortalaması 1,01 ± 0,92, Modified DISCERN skoru 1,73 ± 1,32 ve GQS skoru 1,79 ± 0,92 olarak bulundu. COVID 19 sonrası yüklenen videoların ortalama süresi anlamlı derecede daha yüksekken, COVID 19 ve öncesinde yüklenen videoların ortalama görüntülenme sayısı daha fazlaydı. Ancak JAMA, GQS ve Modified DISCERN skorları açısından iki dönem arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark saptanmadı. Ayrıca, video süresi ile modified DISCERN, JAMA ve GQS skorları arasında pozitif korelasyon gözlendi. Sonuç: Çalışmamız, testis kanseri ile ilgili YouTube videolarının kalitesinin zaman içinde artmadığını ve düşük kaliteli içerik üretiminin sürdüğünü ortaya koymuştur. Ayrıca, pandemi sonrasında videoların kalitesinde belirgin bir değişiklik gözlenmemiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Uysal, Ü., Gürtan, E., Uçar, M. (2026). How Reliable is YouTube Regarding Testicular Cancer? What Has Changed Over Time?. Acta Medica Alanya, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1, 21–28. https://doi.org/10.30565/medalanya.1649782

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (24)

  1. Woldu SL, Bagrodia A. Update on epidemiologic considerations and treatment trends in testicular cancer. Curr Opin Urol. 2018;28(5):440-447 doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000532.
  2. Ghazarian AA, Kelly SP, Altekruse SF, Rosenberg PS, McGlynn KA. Future of testicular germ cell tumor incidence in the United States: forecast through 2026. Cancer. 2017;123(12):2320- 28. doi: 10.1002/cncr.30597.
  3. Saab MM, Davoren MP, Murphy A, Murphy D, Cooke E, Landers M et al. Promoting men's awareness, self-examination, and help-seeking for testicular disorders: a systematic review of interventions. HRB Open Res. 2018;1:16. doi: 10.12688/hrbopenres.12837.3.
  4. Hegarty E, Campbell C, Grammatopoulos E, DiBiase AT, Sherriff M, Cobourne MT. YouTube™ as an information resource for orthognathic surgery. J Orthod. 2017;44(2):90-6. doi: 10.1080/14653125.2017.1319010.
  5. Desai T, Shariff A, Dhingra V, Minhas D, Eure M, Kats M. Is content really king? An objective analysis of the public's response to medical videos on YouTube. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e82469 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082469.
  6. Ceci L. Statista; 2023. YouTube: Statistics and data. https://www.statista.com/topics/2019/youtube/#topicOverview [ Google Scholar]
  7. Loeb S, Reines K, Abu-Salha Y, French W, Butaney M, Macaluso JN Jr, et al. Quality of bladder cancer information on YouTube. European Urology. 2021;79(1):56–9. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.014.
  8. Tanidir Y, Gokalp F, Akdogan N, Batur AF, Sekerci CA, Egriboyun S et al. How did the COVID-19 pandemic affect audience's attitudes in webinars? Int J Clin Pract. 2021;75(7):e14239. doi: 10.1111/ijcp.14239.
  9. Öncel C, Aslan A. Trend topics in prestigious and popular medical journals: The effect of Covid-19. Acta Med. Alanya. 2020;4(3):207–8. doi: 10.30565/medalanya.809103.
  10. Kuo YL, Lin CH, Wang YY, Shieh GJ, Chu WM. Use of YouTube by academic medical centres during the COVID-19 pandemic: an observational study in Taiwan. BMJ Open. 2023;13(4):e071085. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-071085
  11. Di Bello F, Collà Ruvolo C, Cilio S, La Rocca R, Capece M, Creta M, et al. Testicular cancer and YouTube: What do you expect from a social media platform? Int J Urol. 2022;29(7):685-91. doi: 10.1111/iju.14871 12. Gul M, Diri MA. YouTube as a Source of Information About Premature Ejaculation Treatment. J Sex Med. 2019;16(11):1734-40. doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.08.008.
  12. Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: Caveant lector et viewor–Let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA. 1997;277(15):1244-5. PMID: 9103351
  13. Buyuk SK, Alpaydın MT. Quality of information on YouTube™ about rapid maxillary expansion. Turk J Orthod. 2021;34(2):116–21. doi: 10.5152/turkjorthod.2021.20069.
  14. Narayanan S, Basch CH. YouTube and COVID-19 vaccines: A mini scoping review. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2023;19(1):2202091. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2023.2202091.
  15. Tamošiūnaitė I, Vasiliauskas A, Dindaroğlu F. Does YouTube provide adequate information about orthodontic pain? Angle Orthod. 2023;93(4):403-8. doi: 10.2319/072822-527.1.
  16. García-Cano-Fernández AM, Szczesniewski-Dudzik JJ, García-Tello A, Diego-García V, Boronat-Catalá J, Llanes-González L. Quality of bladder cancer information on YouTube. Cent European J Urol. 2022;75(3):248-51. doi: 10.5173/ceju.2022.151.
  17. Duran MB, Kızılkan Y. Quality analysis of testicular cancer videos on YouTube. Andrologia. 2021;53(8):e14118. doi: 10.1111/and.14118.
  18. Loeb S, Sengupta S, Butaney M, Macaluso JN Jr, Czarniecki SW, Robbins R, et al. Dissemination of Misinformative and Biased Information about Prostate Cancer on YouTube. Eur Urol. 2019;75(4):564-7. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.10.056.
  19. Cengiz T, Aydın Şimşek Ş, Ersoy A, Coşkun HS, Pişkin A. Assessment of YouTube Videos on Frozen Shoulder: A Quality Analysis Using DISCERN and JAMA Scoring Systems. Acta Med. Alanya. 2024;8(1):15-9. doi: 10.30565/medalanya.1417889
  20. Fode M, Nolsøe AB, Jacobsen FM, Russo GI, Østergren PB, Jensen CF, et al. Quality of Information in YouTube Videos on Erectile Dysfunction. Seks Med. 2020;8(3):408–13. doi: 10.1016/j.esxm.2020.05.007.
  21. Selvi I, Baydilli N, Akinsal EC. Can YouTube English Videos Be Recommended as an Accurate Source for Learning About Testicular Self-examination? Urology. 2020;145:181-9. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2020.06.082.
  22. Bai G, Pan X, Zhao T, Chen X, Liu G, Fu W. Quality Assessment of YouTube Videos as an Information Source for Testicular Torsion. Front Public Health. 2022;10:905609. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.905609.
  23. Liu J, Wang C, Liu S. Utility of ChatGPT in Clinical Practice. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e48568. doi: 10.2196/48568
  24. Tanidir Y, Gokalp F, Akdogan N, Batur AF, Sekerci CA, Egriboyun S et al. How did the COVID-19 pandemic affect audience's attitudes in webinars? Int J Clin Pract. 2021;75(7):e14239. doi: 10.1111/ijcp.14239.