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
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 8 print issues and online access
$259.00 per year
only $32.38 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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
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.
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
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
Sandvine. Global Internet Phenomena Report. https://www.sandvine.com/hubfs/downloads/phenomena/2018-phenomena-report.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2020.
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
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
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
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
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.
Azer SA. Are DISCERN and JAMA suitable instruments for assessing YouTube videos on thyroid cancer? Methodological Concerns. J Cancer Educ. 2020;35:1267–77.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
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
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
About this article
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
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-021-00454-3
This article is cited by
-
YouTube™ as a source of information on prostatitis: a quality and reliability analysis
International Journal of Impotence Research (2024)
-
YouTube is inadequate as an information source on delayed ejaculation
International Journal of Impotence Research (2023)
-
The spreading information of YouTube videos on Phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors: a worrisome picture from one of the most consulted internet source
International Journal of Impotence Research (2023)
-
Testicular pain and youtube™: are uploaded videos a reliable source to get information?
International Journal of Impotence Research (2023)
-
Analysis of quality information provided by “Dr. YouTubeTM” on Phimosis
International Journal of Impotence Research (2023)