A Quality Assessment of Information Available on Renal Cancer on YouTube
Objectives Many people are turning to alternatives to the conventional doctor-patient
relationship, such as web- based search engines and video forums for their health care information.
We undertook this study to investigate the quality of videos and information on renal cancer
available on the streaming platform YouTube.
Methods We completed a search of YouTube (www.YouTube.com) in September 2021 with the term
“kidney cancer.” The first 120 videos found which met the inclusion criteria (English speaking,
duration greater than one minute, greater than 500 views, renal cancer addressed) were selected. We
recorded information including duration, view count, likes, dislikes, comments, publisher, and
author. The modified DISCERN tool and Global Quality Score (GQS) questionnaire were used to assess
the quality of the included videos. The level of misinformation was assessed using a Likert 5-point
scale. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the collected data. A 2-sample t test was used
to further analyse the quality assessment tool results before, during, and after 2016.
Results Most videos were published during or after 2016 (63.3%), were predominantly created in
(77.5%), and were presented by health care professionals (60%). The median length of the videos was
4.23 (1.01 to
65.55) minutes, and the median number of views was 3087 (514 to 228 152). The median number of
likes and dislikes was 24 and 5, respectively. The median modified DISCERN score was 3, the median
GQS score was 3, and the grading for overall level of misinformation was moderate.
Conclusion The quality of information accessed from YouTube on kidney cancer is of a low to
moderate overall standard with significant levels of misinformation. YouTube should not be used
alone for educational purposes on renal cancer by patients or the public. It is best used in
conjunction with information and advice from a medical practitioner and the health care system.
The Société International d'Urologie (SIU), which owns and publishes the Société International d'Urologie Journal (SIUJ), does not require authors of papers published in the journal to transfer copyright. Instead, we ask authors to grant an exclusive licence that allows us to publish the article in SIUJ (and any derivative or related products or publications) and that allows us to sub-license such rights and exploit all subsidiary rights.
Authors retain the right to use their own articles for their own non-commercial purposes without seeking explicit permission from SIU.
The SIUJ publication licence expressly defines “non-commercial” as “not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation.” Although no activity is completely disconnected from commercial activity, the following are generally considered to be non-commercial uses:
- Reproduction of a reasonable number (no more than 100) of print copies of the published paper for personal use (e.g., sharing with colleagues, including in grant applications).
- Posting a copy of the published version of the paper on the author’s own or their institution’s website. The article must be accompanied by this statement: ‘This article has been published in the SIUJ: [full citation; link]’.
- Inclusion of the paper in a course pack, with a maximum of 100 copies to be used in the author’s institution. The copies must include the following acknowledgement: ‘This article has been published in the SIUJ: [full citation; link].’
As the distinction between commercial and non-commercial is not always clear, authors are strongly advised to seek permission from SIU for any use that may be considered to have a commercial aspect.
We ask the corresponding author to read the terms of the licence and then to grant this exclusive licence on behalf of all authors by indicating agreement to the following statement:
The corresponding author has the right to grant on behalf of all authors and does grant on behalf of all authors, an exclusive licence on a worldwide basis to the SIU and its licensees to permit this article (if accepted) to be published in the SIUJ and any other SIU products and publications and to exploit all subsidiary rights, as set out in our licence agreement.
Review and Decision
Most submissions will be reviewed by a senior editor within 2 weeks. Many manuscripts will be rejected at this point for a variety of reasons, including subject matter outside the scope of the SIUJ, flawed design, discredited or outdated methodology, poor organization or presentation, failure to conform to ethical requirements, and apparent plagiarism.The remaining manuscripts will be sent for peer review. The SIUJ uses a single-blind process: reviewers know the identity of the authors, but the authors are not told who has reviewed their manuscript, and SIUJ ensures that potentially identifying information is removed from comments sent to them. Reviewers are asked to make their recommendations within 10 days, after which a senior/specialist editor will consider their comments and recommend provisional acceptance dependent on satisfactory revision, acceptance without revision, or rejection. Authors should receive a final decision within 4 to 6 weeks of submission.