Quality and Reliability of YouTube Videos on Uterine Fibroid Embolization: A Cross-Sectional Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17876692Keywords:
Uterine Fibroid Embolization, UFE, YouTube, patient education, video quality, DISCERN, JAMA, Global Quality Score.Abstract
ABSTRACTBackground: Uterine fibroid embolization (UFE) is a minimally invasive, uterus-preserving treatment for symptomatic uterine fibroids. Despite its clinical effectiveness, public understanding of UFE remains limited, prompting many patients to rely on YouTube for health information. However, the accuracy and educational value of UFE-related content on this platform have not been comprehensively evaluated.
Objective: To assess the quality, reliability, and educational usefulness of YouTube videos about UFE using validated scoring instruments and to analyze viewer engagement patterns.
Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted on YouTube videos identified using the keyword “Uterine Fibroid Embolization.” After applying predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, eligible videos were evaluated for duration, engagement metrics, and content characteristics. Video quality was assessed using DISCERN, JAMA benchmark criteria, and the Global Quality Score (GQS). Interaction Index and View Rating were calculated to determine user engagement. Statistical analyses included the Kruskal–Wallis H test and Bonferroni-corrected pairwise comparisons.
Results: A total of 475 videos published between 2020 and 2025 were analyzed. The largest proportion (34.7%) was uploaded in 2025, and India (38.1%) and the United States (23.8%) were the most common video sources. Median video duration was 61.5 seconds, and median view count was 624. Significant differences were observed across years for both Interaction Index (χ²(5)=12.08, p=0.034) and View Rating (χ²(5)=40.78, p<0.001). Pairwise comparisons showed that 2024 videos had higher interaction scores than those from 2020 (adjusted p=0.039), while 2025 videos demonstrated significantly higher viewing rates than most other years (adjusted p<0.05). Quality assessments revealed substantial variability, with many videos lacking essential information on risks, complications, and treatment alternatives.
Conclusion: YouTube hosts a large quantity of content on UFE, but its quality and reliability vary widely. Viewer engagement does not correlate with educational value, indicating that popular videos may be incomplete or misleading. These findings underscore the need for healthcare professionals and professional societies to promote high-quality, evidence-based digital resources to support informed patient decision-making.
Keywords: Uterine Fibroid Embolization, UFE, YouTube, patient education, video quality, DISCERN, JAMA, Global Quality Score.
References
1. Dariushnia SR, Nikolic B, Stokes L, Spies JB, et al. Quality improvement guidelines for uterine artery embolization for symptomatic leiomyomata. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2014;25(11):1737–1747.
2. de Bruijn AM, Ankum WM, Reekers JA. Uterine artery embolization for symptomatic fibroids: A systematic review. Radiology. 2016;279(3):630–639.
3. Manyonda IT, Belli AM, Lumsden MA. Uterine fibroid embolization versus myomectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;223(3):341–351.
4. Spies JB, Spector A, Roth AR, Baker CM, Mauro L. Complications after uterine artery embolization for leiomyomas. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;100(5 Pt 1):873–880.
5. Walker WJ, Pelage JP. Uterine artery embolisation for symptomatic fibroids: Clinical results in 400 women with imaging follow up. BJOG. 2002;109(11):1262–1272.
6. Goodwin SC, Spies JB, Worthington-Kirsch R, et al. Uterine artery embolization for the treatment of uterine leiomyomata: Long-term outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(1):22–33.
7. Choi WJ, Harris JA, Pawlik TM. Uterine fibroid embolization: Mechanism, outcomes, and future directions. Semin Intervent Radiol. 2021;38(4):486–497.
8. Gupta JK, Sinha A, Lumsden MA, Hickey M. Uterine artery embolization for symptomatic uterine fibroids. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(12):CD005073.
9. Bradley LD. Uterine fibroid embolization: An underused therapy? Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2006;33(1):125–144.
10. Ko SY, Lee HJ, Shin JE, et al. Clinical outcomes of uterine artery embolization for symptomatic fibroids. Clin Radiol. 2020;75(6):473–480.
11. Spies JB, Coyne K, Guaou Guaou N, Boyle D, Skyrnarz-Murphy K, Gonzalves SM. The UFS-QOL questionnaire for measuring fibroid symptoms. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99(2):290–300.
12. Siskin GP, Beck A, Stainken BF. Embolization for fibroids: Early clinical results. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2000;11(7):799–805.
13. Worthington-Kirsch R, Popky GL, Hutchins FL. Uterine arterial embolization for fibroids: Results of first 100 patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;178(5):105–111.
14. Madathil KC, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Greenstein JS, Gramopadhye AK. Healthcare information on YouTube: A systematic review. Health Informatics J. 2015;21(3):173–194.
15. Drozd B, Couvillon E, Suarez A. Medical YouTube videos and methods of evaluation. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(7):e230.
16. Basch CH, Hillyer GC, Meleo-Erwin Z, Jaime C, et al. YouTube and public health education: A review. J Prev Med Public Health. 2016;49(4):234–238.
17. Singh AG, Singh S, Singh PP. YouTube for health information: A systematic review of reliability. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;87(2):244–247.
18. Azer SA. Evaluation of YouTube videos about medical topics. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(2):e16797.
19. Hassona Y, Taimeh D, Marahleh A, Scully C. YouTube as a source of patient information for mouth cancer. Oral Dis. 2016;22(3):202–208.
20. Ursic C, Trapp S, Al-Hinnawi M. Evaluation of YouTube as a source of patient information on hysterectomy. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2020;47(3):296–302.
21. O’Connor S. Health information quality on social media: Systematic review. Health Inf Manag. 2017;46(4):211–222.
22. Syed-Abdul S, Fernandez-Luque L, et al. Misleading health information promoted on video-based platforms. Health Informatics J. 2013;19(1):51–60.
23. Bernard A, Langille M, Hughes S, Rose C, et al. Systematic review of patient education using YouTube. Acad Med. 2016;91(7):954–964.
24. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: An instrument for judging consumer health information. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999;53(2):105–111.
25. Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing and ensuring quality of medical information on the Internet (JAMA criteria). JAMA. 1997;277(15):1244–1245.
26. Bernard RM, Borokhovski E, Schmid RF, Tamim R, Abrami PC. Meta-analysis of blended learning effectiveness. Internet High Educ. 2014;22:18–37.
27. Gabay M, Gaitini D, et al. Patients’ perspectives on uterine fibroid embolization. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(11):2986–2989.
28. Pron G. Clinical review of uterine artery embolization for uterine fibroids. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2008;30(7):571–579.
29. Hehenkamp WJK, Volkers NA, Donderwinkel PFJ, et al. Uterine artery embolization versus hysterectomy: Randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193(5):1618–1629.
30. Edwards RD, Moss JG, Lumsden MA, et al. Randomized comparison of uterine artery embolization vs. surgery for fibroids (REST trial). BMJ. 2007;335(7628):1251–1254.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Sefa Turkoglu, Ayse Say
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
