Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Analysis of quality information provided by “Dr. YouTubeTM” on Phimosis

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 35, pages 398–403 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The objective of the current study was to evaluate the quality of the information provided in YouTubeTM videos on phimosis. The term “phimosis” was searched on YouTubeTM, and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) for Audio/Visual Materials (Understandability and Actionability sections, good-quality score of minimum 70%) and misinformation scale (rated from 1 to 5) were used to assess video quality. Quality assessment was investigated over time. Of all, 60 were eligible for analysis. Healthcare providers were the authors of 75.0% of the videos, and 73.3% of the videos were patient-targeted. The median Understandability score was 42.9% (interquartile range [IQR]:34.5–58.9) and ranged from 28.6 to 42.9% (2013–2020). The median Actionability score was 50.0% (IQR:25.0–56.2) and ranged from 25.0 to 50.0% (2013–2020). The median misinformation score was 2.8/5 (IQR:1.6–3.6), and although the score fluctuated over time, the median score was 2.6 both in 2013 and in 2020. According to our results, although an increase of PEMAT over time was observed, the overall quality of the information uploaded on YouTubeTM is low. Therefore, at present, YouTubeTM cannot be recommended as a reliable source of information on phimosis. Video producers should upload higher-quality videos to help physicians and patients in the decision-making process.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: PRISMA flowchart.
Fig. 2: Trend analysis.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data and materials are available whenever requested.

Code availability

Code is available whenever requested.

References

  1. Salonia A, Bettocchi C, Boeri L, Capogrosso P, Carvalho J, Cilesiz NC, et al. European association of urology guidelines on sexual and reproductive health—2021 update: male sexual dysfunction. Eur Urol. 2021;80:333–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hayashi Y, Kojima Y, Mizuno K, Kohri K. Prepuce: phimosis, paraphimosis, and circumcision. Sci World J. 2011;11:289–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. McGregor TB, Pike JG, Leonard MP. Pathologic and physiologic phimosis: approach to the phimotic foreskin. Can Fam Physician Med Fam Can. 2007;53:445–8.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Morris BJ, Matthews JG, Krieger JN. Prevalence of phimosis in males of all ages: systematic review. Urology. 2020;135:124–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Balasubramanian A, Yu J, Srivatsav A, Spitz A, Eisenberg ML, Thirumavalavan N, et al. A review of the evolving landscape between the consumer Internet and men’s health. Transl Androl Urol. 2020;9:S123–34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Bujnowska-Fedak MM, Waligóra J, Mastalerz-Migas A. The internet as a source of health information and services. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2019;1211:1–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gómez Rivas J, Carrion DM, Tortolero L, Veneziano D, Esperto F, Greco F, et al. Scientific social media, a new way to expand knowledge. What do urologists need to know? Actas Urol Esp. 2019;43:269–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Teoh JY-C, Ong WLK, Gonzalez-Padilla D, Castellani D, Dubin JM, Esperto F, et al. A global survey on the impact of COVID-19 on urological services. Eur Urol. 2020;78:265–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Creta M, Sagnelli C, Celentano G, Napolitano L, La Rocca R, Capece M, et al. SARS‐CoV‐2 infection affects the lower urinary tract and male genital system: A systematic review. J Med Virol. 2021;93:3133–42.

  10. YouTube for Press [Internet]. [cited 2021 Mar 7]. Available from: https://blog.youtube/press

  11. Loeb S, Sengupta S, Butaney M, Macaluso JN, Czarniecki SW, Robbins R, et al. Dissemination of misinformative and biased information about prostate cancer on YouTube. Eur Urol. 2019;75:564–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Social media demographics to inform your brand’s strategy in 2021 [Internet]. Sprout Social. 2021 [cited 2021 Mar 25]. Available from: https://sproutsocial.com/insights/new-social-media-demographics/

  13. Gul M, Diri MA. YouTube as a source of information about premature ejaculation treatment. J Sex Med. 2019;16:1734–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Fode M, Nolsøe AB, Jacobsen FM, Russo GI, Østergren PB, Jensen CFS, et al. Quality of information in YouTube videos on erectile dysfunction. Sex Med. 2020;8:408–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Ku S, Balasubramanian A, Yu J, Srivatsav A, Gondokusumo J, Tatem AJ, et al. A systematic evaluation of youtube as an information source for male infertility. Int J Impot Res. 2021;33:611–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Szmuda T, Rosvall P, Hetzger TV, Ali S, Słoniewski P. YouTube as a source of patient information for hydrocephalus: a content-quality and optimization analysis. World Neurosurg. 2020;138:e469–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ward M, Ward B, Abraham M, Nicheporuck A, Elkattawy O, Herschman Y, et al. The educational quality of neurosurgical resources on YouTube. World Neurosurg. 2019;130:e660–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gerundo G, Collà Ruvolo C, Puzone B, Califano G, La Rocca R, Parisi V, et al. Personal protective equipment in Covid-19: Evidence-based quality and analysis of YouTube videos after one year of pandemic. Am J Infect Control. 2022;50:300–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Megaly M, Khalil C, Tadros B, Tawadros M. Evaluation of educational value of YouTube videos for patients with coeliac disease. Int J Celiac Dis. 2016;4:102–4.

    Google Scholar 

  20. The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) and User’s Guide. :67.

  21. Shoemaker SJ, Wolf MS, Brach C. Development of the patient education materials assessment tool (PEMAT): A new measure of understandability and actionability for print and audiovisual patient information. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;96:395–403.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Betschart P, Pratsinis M, Müllhaupt G, Rechner R, Herrmann TR, Gratzke C, et al. Information on surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia on YouTube is highly biased and misleading: Surgical treatment of BPH on YouTube. BJU Int. 2020;125:595–601.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Phimosis - Patient Information [Internet]. [cited 2021 Mar 5]. Available from: https://patients.uroweb.org/other-diseases/phimosis/

  24. Natali A, Rossetti MA. Complications of self‐circumcision: a case report and proposal. J Sex Med. 2008;5:2970–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kintu-Luwaga R. The emerging trend of self-circumcision and the need to define cause: Case report of a 21 year-old male. Int J Surg Case Rep. 2016;25:225–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Ettanji A, Bencherki Y, Wichou EM, Dakir M, Debbagh A, Aboutaieb R. Foreskin necrosis – Complication following self-circumcision. Urol Case Rep. 2021;38:101671.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Montes Cardona CE, García-Perdomo HA. Incidence of penile cancer worldwide: systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev Panam Salud Pública. 2017;41:e117.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Survival Rates for Penile Cancer [Internet]. [cited 2021 Dec 20]. Available from: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/penile-cancer/detection-diagnosis-staging/survival-rates.html.

  29. Thomas A, Necchi A, Muneer A, Tobias-Machado M, Tran ATH, Van Rompuy A-S, et al. Penile cancer. Nat Rev Dis Prim. 2021;7:11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Salama A, Panoch J, Bandali E, Carroll A, Wiehe S, Downs S, et al. Consulting “Dr. YouTube”: an objective evaluation of hypospadias videos on a popular video-sharing website. J Pediatr Urol. 2020;16:70.e1–e9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Rubel KE, Alwani MM, Nwosu OI, Bandali EH, Shipchandler TZ, Illing EA, et al. Understandability and actionability of audiovisual patient education materials on sinusitis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2020;10:564–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Duran MB, Kizilkan Y. Quality analysis of testicular cancer videos on YouTube. Andrologia. 2021 ;53:e14118.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Pratsinis M, Abt D, Müllhaupt G, Langenauer J, Knoll T, Schmid H-P, et al. Systematic assessment of information about surgical urinary stone treatment on YouTube. World J Urol. 2021;39:935–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Capece M, Di Giovanni A, Cirigliano L, Napolitano L, La Rocca R, Creta M, et al. YouTube as a source of information on penile prosthesis. Andrologia. 2022;54:e14246.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Melchionna A, Collà Ruvolo C, Capece M, La Rocca R, Celentano G, Califano G, et al. Testicular pain and youtubeTM: are uploaded videos a reliable source to get information? Int J Impot Res. 2022 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-022-00536-w. Online ahead of print.

  36. Morra S, Collà Ruvolo C, Napolitano L, La Rocca R, Celentano G, Califano G, et al. YouTubeTM as a source of information on bladder pain syndrome: A contemporary analysis. Neurourol Urodyn. 2022;41:237–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Baydilli N, Selvi I. Is social media reliable as a source of information on peyronie’s disease treatment? Int J Impot Res. 2021 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-021-00454-3. Online ahead of print.

  38. Brimley S, Natale C, Dick B, Pastuszak A, Khera M, Baum N, et al. The emerging critical role of telemedicine in the urology clinic: a practical guide. Sex Med Rev. 2021;9:289–95.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Rachel C. Applefield, from the IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, for the English language revision of this paper. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, Urology Unit, University of Naples “Federico II”, Napoli, Italy

    Simone Cilio, Claudia Collà Ruvolo, Carmine Turco, Massimiliano Creta, Marco Capece, Roberto La Rocca, Giuseppe Celentano, Gianluigi Califano, Simone Morra, Alberto Melchionna, Francesco Mangiapia, Felice Crocetto, Alessandro Palmieri, Ciro Imbimbo & Vincenzo Mirone

  2. Urology Unit, Department of Medicine, Surgery, Dentistry “Scuola Medica Salernitana”, University of Salerno, Baronissi, Italy

    Paolo Verze

Authors
  1. Simone Cilio
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Claudia Collà Ruvolo
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carmine Turco
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Massimiliano Creta
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marco Capece
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Roberto La Rocca
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Giuseppe Celentano
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Gianluigi Califano
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Simone Morra
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Alberto Melchionna
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Francesco Mangiapia
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Felice Crocetto
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Paolo Verze
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Alessandro Palmieri
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Ciro Imbimbo
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Vincenzo Mirone
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conception and design of the study: SC, CCR, MC, MC, RLR, GC, GC. Data acquisition: CT, SC, SM, AM. Analysis and interpretation of data: CCR, GC, FM. Drafting the manuscript: AP, CI, VM. Style revision: FC, PV. All authors revised the manuscript and read and approved the version submitted.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claudia Collà Ruvolo.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval

The paper is exempt from ethical committee approval.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cilio, S., Collà Ruvolo, C., Turco, C. et al. Analysis of quality information provided by “Dr. YouTubeTM” on Phimosis. Int J Impot Res 35, 398–403 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-022-00557-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-022-00557-5

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links