Is it safe to learn about vital pulp capping from YouTube™ videos? A content and quality analysis

Abstract

AimTo evaluate YouTube videos on vital pulp capping (VPC) for content, quality, source, usefulness, and reliability. Materials and MethodsThis study assessed 249 English-language videos on vital pulp therapy using the Total Content Score (TCS), Video Information and Quality Index (VIQI), Global Quality Scale (GQS), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) score and modified DISCERN score. Videos were categorized based on communication quality, duration, likes and dislikes, views, source, and video type. Of the videos analyzed, 22.1% met the inclusion criteria. Data were analyzed using Shapiro-Wilk, Kruskal-Wallis, and post hoc Bonferroni tests. Sperman's correlation, Kendal tau tests for correlations, and Fisher's exact test were used to assess associations between categorical variables. ResultsThe study identified significant correlations between various parameters. A higher TCS was correlated with increased VIQI (p = 0.005) and GQS scores (r = 0.685, p < 0.05). A moderate positive correlation was found between GQS scores and TCSs (r = 0.577, p < 0.05). VIQI scores were significantly and positively correlated with TCS (r = 0.573, p < 0.05) and comment count (r = 0.306, p < 0.05). JAMA scores were positively correlated with upload time (r = 0.304, p < 0.05), comment count (r = 0.337, p < 0.05), and likes (r = 0.301, p = 0.05). ConclusionsYouTube videos provided low-to-average quality VPC information and tended to be inaccurate. Therefore, public videos may be incorrect, incomplete, and low-quality. Clinicians and patients should seek reliable information from specialists.