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:

Is social media reliable as a source of information on Peyronie’s disease treatment?

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 34, pages 295–301 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Although YouTube video is one of the most widely used and easily accessible information sharing sources, its widespread use can carry the risk of spreading misleading and unreliable information. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy, reliability, quality, and content of the most viewed YouTube videos related to Peyronie’s disease treatment. The keywords of “penile curvature”, “penile deformity”, “bent penis” “curved penis”, and “Peyronie’s disease” were searched on YouTube. Among 700 YouTube videos, 267 videos were included in the study. They were categorized by two independent urologists with board certification as accurate information (n = 138, 51.7%) or inaccurate information (n = 129, 48.3%). Accurate videos contained information about the treatment of Peyronie’s disease with proven scientific accuracy according to the current guidelines, whereas inaccurate videos contained scientifically unproven or incorrect information and recommendations not in the guidelines. A 5-point modified DISCERN scale and Global Quality Score were used for reliability and quality assessment. Although the accurate information group had a significantly higher DISCERN Score (3, IQR = 3–4 vs. 1, IQR = 1–2, p < .001) and Global Quality Score (5, IQR = 4–5 vs. 2, IQR = 1–3 p < 0.001); the number of views per day (10.37, IQR = 3.01–28.12 vs. 6.65, IQR = 1.55–27.87) and likes (36, IQR = 6–145 vs. 19.5, IQR = 4–121.7) were higher but not significant in the inaccurate information group. The majority of the videos in the inaccurate information group were uploaded by medical advertisement/for profit companies (51.2%) and individual users/patients (38.8%), whereas universities/professional organizations/nonprofit physician/physician groups constituted the majority in the accurate information group (60.9%). According to our findings, videos containing inaccurate information are more popular. People should be made aware that they should not immediately believe the videos containing medical advertisements without consulting nonprofit physicians.

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

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sasso F, Vittori M, D’Addessi A, Bassi PF. Penile curvature: an update for management from 20 years experience in a high volume centre. Urologia. 2016;83:130–138. https://doi.org/10.5301/uro.5000169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Salonia A, Bettocchi J, Carvalho J, Corona G, Jones TH, Kadioglu A, et al. European Association of Urology guidelines on sexual and reproductive health: the 2020 update. Arnhem: EAU Guidelines Office, . https://uroweb.org/guideline/sexual-and-reproductive-health/#8_1. Accessed 1 Dec 2020.

  3. Yafi FA, Pinsky MR, Sangkum P, Hellstrom WJ. Therapeutic advances in the treatment of Peyronie’s disease. Andrology. 2015;3:650–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/andr.12058

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gul M, Diri MA. YouTube as a source of information about premature ejaculation treatment. J Sex Med. 2019;16:1734–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.08.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sandvine. Global Internet Phenomena Report. https://www.sandvine.com/hubfs/downloads/phenomena/2018-phenomena-report.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2020.

  6. Esen E, Aslan M, Sonbahar BC, Kerimoglu RS. YouTube English videos as a source of information on breast self-examination. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;173:629–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-5044-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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;75:564–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.10.056

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tolu S, Yurdakul OV, Basaran B, Rezvani A. English-language videos on YouTube as a source of information on self-administer subcutaneous anti-tumour necrosis factor agent injections. Rheumatol Int. 2018;38:1285–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-018-4047-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Erdem MN, Karaca S. Evaluating the accuracy and quality of the information in kyphosis videos shared on YouTube. Spine. 2018;43:E1334–E1339. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002691

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nehra A, Alterowitz R, Culkin DJ, Faraday MM, Hakim LS, Heidelbaugh JJ, et al. American Urological Association. https://www.auanet.org/guidelines/peyronies-disease-guideline. 2015. Accessed 1 December.

  11. Azer SA. Are DISCERN and JAMA suitable instruments for assessing YouTube videos on thyroid cancer? Methodological Concerns. J Cancer Educ. 2020;35:1267–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Selvi I, Baydilli N, Akinsal EC. Can YouTube english videos be recommended as an accurate source for learning about testicular self-examination? Urology. 2020;145:181–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2020.06.082

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Carneiro B, Dizon DS. Prostate cancer social media: in YouTube we trust? Eur Urol. 2019;75:568–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.01.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Selvi I, Baydilli N. An analysis of misleading YouTube videos on urological conditions: what to do about the danger of spreading misinformation of the YouTube videos? World J Urol. 2021;9:1–2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03623-7. Online ahead of print

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Tanwar R, Khattar N, Sood R, Makkar A. Benign prostatic hyperplasia related content on YouTube: unregulated and concerning. Recent Prog Med. 2015;106:337–41. https://doi.org/10.1701/1940.21092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Adhikari J, Sharma P, Arjyal L, Uprety D. YouTube as a source of information on cervical cancer. N Am J Med Sci. 2016;8:183–186. https://doi.org/10.4103/1947-2714.179940

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Nour MM, Nour MH, Tsatalou OM, Barrera A. Schizophrenia on YouTube. Psychiatr Serv. 2017;68:70–74. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201500541

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pant S, Deshmukh A, Murugiah K, Kumar G, Sachdeva R, Mehta JL. Assessing the credibility of the “YouTube approach” to health information on acute myocardial infarction. Clin Cardiol. 2012;35:281–285. https://doi.org/10.1002/clc.21981

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Ory J, MacDonald L, Langille G. Noninvasive treatment options for Peyronie’s disease. Sex Med Rev. 2020;S2050-0521:30127-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2019.12.002

  20. Kuja-Halkola R, Henningsohn L, D’Onofrio BM, Mills J, Adolfsson A, Larsson H, et al. Mental disorders in Peyronie’s disease: a Swedish Cohort Study of 3.5 million men. J Urol. 2021;205:864–70. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001426.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hatzichristodoulou G, Osmonov D, Kubler H, Hellstrom WJG, Yafi FA. Contemporary review of grafting techniques for the surgical treatment of Peyronie’s disease. Sex Med Rev. 2017;5:544–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2017.01.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hatzimouratidis KGF, Moncada I, Muneer A, Salonia A, Verze P. European Association of Urology guidelines on male sexual dysfunction: the 2019 update. Arnhem: EAU Guidelines Office; 2019. Accessed 19 Mar 2019.

  23. Stub T, Musial F, Kristoffersen AA, Alræk T, Liu J. Adverse effects of homeopathy, what do we know? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Complement Ther Med. 2016;26:146–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2016.03.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Epifanova MV, Gvasalia BR, Durashov MA, Artemenko SA. Platelet-rich plasma therapy for male sexual dysfunction: myth or reality?. Sex Med Rev. 2020;8:106–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2019.02.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Borgmann H, Salem J, Baunacke M, Boehm K, Groeben C, Schmid M, et al. Mapping the landscape of urology: a new media-based cross-sectional analysis of public versus academic interest. Int J Urol. 2018;25:421–428. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.13527

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Katz SJ. Ask the rheumatologist online: a qualitative analysis of a web-based service. Clin Rheumatol. 2018;37:539–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-017-3924-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Numan Baydilli, Ismail Selvi

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Erciyes University Medical School, Kayseri, Turkey

    Numan Baydilli

  2. Department of Urology, Başakşehir Çam & Sakura City Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

    Ismail Selvi

Authors
  1. Numan Baydilli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ismail Selvi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

NB: the conception and design of the study, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, literature search, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. IS: the conception and design of the study, acquisition of data, analysis, and interpretation of data, literature search, drafting the article, final approval of the version to be submitted.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ismail Selvi.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. Therefore, there is no need for ethical approval.

Informed consent

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. Therefore, there is no need for informed consent.

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

Baydilli, N., Selvi, I. Is social media reliable as a source of information on Peyronie’s disease treatment?. Int J Impot Res 34, 295–301 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-021-00454-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-021-00454-3

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links