Osteochondritis dissecans: analyzing educational content quality and reliability on YouTube

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study is to compare the accuracy, reliability, and educational quality of YouTube videos on osteochondritis dissecans based on their YouTube Health verification status.

Methods: The term “osteochondritis dissecans” was searched on June 3, 2024. The first 50 videos found on YouTube after searching “osteochondritis dissecans” were evaluated. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria was used to score video reliability and accuracy (0–4 points), the Global Quality Score (GQS) was used to score nonspecific educational content (0–5 points), and the osteochondritis dissecans specific score (OCDSS) was used to score specific educational content (0–11 points). Three independent reviewers scored all videos, and interrater reliability was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Group differences were analyzed with one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and independent sample t-tests, and multivariable linear regression was used to identify independent predictors of JAMA, GQS, and OCDSS scores.

Results: A total of 50 videos were analyzed with a cumulative 326,851 views. The mean JAMA score was 2.28 ± 0.64, the mean GQS score was 2.60 ± 1.36, and the mean OCDSS was 5.02 ± 3.16. The mean JAMA score for YouTube Health verified videos was 2.44 ± 0.34, GQS was 2.72 ± 1.22, and OCDSS was 5.72 ± 2.69. The mean JAMA score for videos not verified by YouTube Health was 2.29 ± 0.65, GQS score was 2.61 ± 1.44, and OCDSS was 4.95 ± 3.37. These differences were not statistically significant: JAMA p = 0.380, GQS p = 0.837, OCDSS p = 0.546.

Conclusions: There were no significant differences in reliability, educational content, and comprehensiveness between videos that were verified by YouTube Health and videos that were not verified.

Keywords

osteochondritis dissecans / YouTube / YouTube Health / educational content

References

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

[2] 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.

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

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

[5] 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/

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

[7] 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.

[8] 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.

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[16] The Diagnosis and Treatment of Osteochondritis Dissecans; OrthoInfo [Internet]. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; [cited2025 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.

[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.