# Is YouTube a reliable source of current information and education about urodynamics? A cross-sectional analysis

## TL;DR

This study evaluates if YouTube provides reliable and current information about urodynamics, finding that while some useful content exists, quality varies widely.

## Contribution

The study introduces a systematic evaluation of YouTube's reliability as an educational resource for urodynamics using specific quality metrics.

## Key findings

- Useful videos scored significantly higher on quality metrics like GQS and DISCERN compared to non-useful videos.
- No significant differences in popularity metrics were found between useful and non-useful videos.
- Advertisement channels had more subscribers but did not show higher content quality.

## Abstract

Urodynamic testing plays an important role in assessing lower urinary tract function. Due to the increasing use of the internet for medical information, platforms like YouTube have gained popularity as educational tools for medical procedures. However, the quality and reliability of this information are often uncertain. This study aims to evaluate the quality and reliability of YouTube videos as a source of current information and education on urodynamics.

A search for “urodynamics” and “urodynamics test” on YouTube was conducted on March 8, 2024. The first 100 videos were screened, and 29 relevant videos were evaluated by two urologists. Videos were assessed for duration, number of views, likes, comments, and source, and scored for content quality using the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) criteria, Global Quality Score (GQS), and DISCERN tool.

Videos were categorized into “useful” and “non-useful” groups based on BAUS scores. While there was no significant difference in video popularity metrics between the groups, GQS and DISCERN scores were significantly higher in the “useful” group (p = 0.003 and p = 0.002, respectively). Videos from healthcare professionals, health information websites, and advertisements showed no significant differences in quality metrics, except for the number of subscribers, with advertisement channels having more subscribers (p = 0.026).

YouTube contains useful information on urodynamics, but the overall quality varies. Efforts should be made to improve the content quality to better serve patients seeking information on this platform.