Exploration of Digital Health Technologies

Home
/
Exploration of Digital Health Technologies
/
Articles
/
Table 4

From: Osteochondritis dissecans: analyzing educational content quality and reliability on YouTube

Table 4. Mean JAMA, GQS, and OCDSS scores by content category.

Content category	JAMA	GQS	OCDSS	n
Disease-specific	2.30 ± 0.56, median 2.5 (IQR 2.0–3.0)	3.25 ± 1.40, median 3.0 (IQR 2.0–3.0)	6.55 ± 3.20, median 6.0 (IQR 4.0–8.0)	29
Management techniques	2.58 ± 0.82, median 2.0 (IQR 1.5–2.5)	2.03 ± 1.00, median 2.5 (IQR 2.0–3.0)	3.39 ± 2.33, median 5.0 (IQR 3.0–7.0)	12
Patient experience	2.00 ± 0.33, median 2.0 (IQR 1.0–2.0)	1.47 ± 0.38, median 2.0 (IQR 1.5–2.5)	2.33 ± 1.62, median 4.0 (IQR 2.0–5.0)	5
Advertisement	1.92 ± 0.17, median 1.5 (IQR 1.0–2.0)	1.25 ± 0.32, median 2.0 (IQR 1.0–2.5)	2.50 ± 1.73, median 3.0 (IQR 2.0–4.0)	4

Return to article view

ANOVA results: JAMA (F = 1.84, p = 0.153), GQS (F = 6.85, p = 0.001), OCDSS (F = 6.77, p = 0.001). ANOVA: one-way analysis of variance; GQS: Global Quality Score; JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association; OCDSS: osteochondritis dissecans specific score.

Declarations

Author contributions

TML: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Visualization, Data curation, Writing—original draft. JL and DN: Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing—review & editing. DC: Supervision, Writing—review & editing, Project administration. All authors read and approved the submitted version.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent to publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Funding

No funding was used for this study.

Copyright

Publisher’s note

Open Exploration maintains a neutral stance on jurisdictional claims in published institutional affiliations and maps. All opinions expressed in this article are the personal views of the author(s) and do not represent the stance of the editorial team or the publisher.

References

Internet, Broadband Fact Sheet [Internet]. Pew Research Center; c2025 [cited 2025 Jul 1]. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/

Wang X, Cohen RA. Health Information Technology Use Among Adults: United States, July–December 2022. NCHS Data Brief, no 482. Hyattsville: National Center for Health Statistics; 2023. [DOI]

LaValley SA, Kiviniemi MT, Gage-Bouchard EA. Where people look for online health information. Health Info Libr J. 2017;34:146–55. [DOI] [PubMed]

Madathil KC, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Greenstein JS, Gramopadhye AK. Healthcare information on YouTube: A systematic review. Health Informatics J. 2015;21:173–94. [DOI] [PubMed]

Social Media in America: 10 Stats that are Changing in 2025 [Internet]. Suresh A, Nan S; [cited 2025 Jul 1]. Available from: https://www.sprinklr.com/blog/social-media-in-america/

Mohamed F, Shoufan A. Users’ experience with health-related content on YouTube: an exploratory study. BMC Public Health. 2024;24:86. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

Kara M, Ozduran E, Kara MM, Özbek İC, Hancı V. Evaluating the readability, quality, and reliability of responses generated by ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity on the most commonly asked questions about Ankylosing spondylitis. PLoS One. 2025;20:e0326351. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

Ozduran E, Hanci V, Erkin Y. Evaluating the readability, quality and reliability of online patient education materials on chronic low back pain. Natl Med J India. 2024;37:124–30. [DOI] [PubMed]

Thelwall M. Lifestyle information from YouTube influencers: some consumption patterns. J Doc. 2021;77:1209–22. [DOI]

10.

Brooks FM, Lawrence H, Jones A, McCarthy MJH. YouTube^™ as a source of patient information for lumbar discectomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2014;96:144–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

11.

Koller U, Waldstein W, Schatz KD, Windhager R. YouTube provides irrelevant information for the diagnosis and treatment of hip arthritis. Int Orthop. 2016;40:1995–2002. [DOI] [PubMed]

12.

Cassidy JT, Fitzgerald E, Cassidy ES, Cleary M, Byrne DP, Devitt BM, et al. YouTube provides poor information regarding anterior cruciate ligament injury and reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26:840–5. [DOI] [PubMed]

13.

Wang D, Jayakar RG, Leong NL, Leathers MP, Williams RJ, Jones KJ. Evaluation of the Quality, Accuracy, and Readability of Online Patient Resources for the Management of Articular Cartilage Defects. Cartilage. 2017;8:112–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

14.

Erdem MN, Karaca S. Evaluating the Accuracy and Quality of the Information in Kyphosis Videos Shared on YouTube. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018;43:E1334–9. [DOI] [PubMed]

15.

Kunze KN, Cohn MR, Wakefield C, Hamati F, LaPrade RF, Forsythe B, et al. YouTube as a Source of Information About the Posterior Cruciate Ligament: A Content-Quality and Reliability Analysis. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2019;1:e109–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

16.

The Diagnosis and Treatment of Osteochondritis Dissecans; OrthoInfo [Internet]. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; [cited 2025 Jul 1]. Available from: https://www.aaos.org/globalassets/quality-and-practice-resources/osteochondritis-dissecans/osteochondritis-dissecans-rapid-update-2023.pdf

17.

Lin JQ, Christopher J, Khela M, Thuo E, Khela H, Chakkalakal D. YouTube Videos on Lateral Epicondylitis Often Lack High-Quality, Reliable Information. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2025;7:101150. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

18.

McMahon KM, Schwartz J, Nilles-Melchert T, Ray K, Eaton V, Chakkalakal D. YouTube and the Achilles Tendon: An Analysis of Internet Information Reliability and Content Quality. Cureus. 2022;14:e23984. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]