Article Data

  • Views 1224
  • Dowloads 142

Original Research

Open Access

An evaluation of YouTube video content regarding erectile dysfunction

  • Mehmet Yilmaz Salman1
  • Orhun Sinanoglu1

1Sancaktepe Sehit Prof Dr Ilhan Varank Training and Research Hospital, Department of Urology, 34785 Istanbul, Turkey

DOI: 10.31083/jomh.2021.055 Vol.18,Issue 1,January 2022 pp.1-7

Submitted: 29 December 2021 Accepted: 04 March 2021

Published: 31 January 2022

*Corresponding Author(s): Mehmet Yilmaz Salman E-mail:


Purpose: YouTubeTM is one of the most popular social media platforms on the internet, and patients with chronic disease frequently use it to seek treatment options. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the quality of YouTube videos about erectile dysfunction.

Materials & methods: The terms "erectile dysfunction treatment'', "erectile dysfunction surgery'', and "cure erectile dysfunction'' were entered into the YouTube search bar. A total of 56 videos were included in the study. Videos' view counts; upload dates; like, dislike, and comment counts; uploader qualifications; length; and content were recorded. Video power index (VPI), Quality Criteria for Consumer Health Information (DISCERN), and Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) scores were determined.

Results: Thirty-two (57.1%) videos consisted of real images, and 24 (42.9%) contained animated images. Twenty-four (42.9%) videos were uploaded by physicians, and 32 (57.1%) were uploaded by non-physicians. The mean like count of the videos was 5,307 ± 17.618, the mean dislike count was 560.07 ± 1548.07, and the mean comment count was 235 ± 373. The mean VPI value of the videos was calculated as 81.19 ± 21.19, the DISCERN score was 30.5 ± 8.1, and the JAMA score was 1.23 ± 0.55. Overall quality was very poor in 24 (42.9%) of the examined videos, poor in 21 (37.5%), average in 10 (17.9%), and good in one (1.8%).

Conclusion: The overall quality of YouTube content on erectile dysfunction was not sufficient to provide reliable information for patients. Physicians should warn patients about the limitations of YouTube and direct them toward more appropriate sources of information.


Erectile dysfunction; YouTube; DISCERN; JAMA; Quality

Cite and Share

Mehmet Yilmaz Salman,Orhun Sinanoglu. An evaluation of YouTube video content regarding erectile dysfunction. Journal of Men's Health. 2022. 18(1);1-7.


[1] Hatzimouratidis K, Amar E, Eardley I, Giuliano F, Hatzichristou D, Montorsi F, et al. Guidelines on male sexual dysfunction: erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation. European Urology. 2010; 57: 804–814.

[2] Feldman HA, Goldstein I, Hatzichristou DG, Krane RJ, McKinlay JB. Impotence and its medical and psychosocial correlates: results of the Massachusetts male aging study. Journal of Urology. 1994; 151: 54–61.

[3] Kuru T, Erken HY. Evaluation of the quality and reliability of YouTube videos on rotator cuff tears. Cureus. 2020; 12: e6852.

[4] Powell J, Inglis N, Ronnie J, Large S. The characteristics and motivations of online health information seekers: cross-sectional survey and qualitative interview study. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2011; 13: e20.

[5] Fox S, Raine L. The online health care revolution: how the web helps Americans take better care of themselves. Washington DC: Pew Charitable Trusts. 2000.

[6] Fernandez-Luque L, Karlsen R, Melton GB. HealthTrust: a social network approach for retrieving online health videos. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2012; 14: e22.

[7] Ferhatoglu MF, Kartal A, Ekici U, Gurkan A. Evaluation of the reliability, utility, and quality of the ınformation in sleeve gastrectomy videos shared on open access video sharing platform YouTube. Obesity Surgery. 2019; 29: 1477–1484.

[8] OMNICORE. YouTube by the Numbers: Stats, Demographics & Fun Facts. 2020. Avaliable at: (Accessed: 18 Janurary 2020).

[9] Pandey A, Patni N, Singh M, Sood A, Singh G. YouTube as a source of information on the H1N1 influenza pandemic. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2010; 38: e1–e3.

[10] Sood A, Sarangi S, Pandey A, Murugiah K. YouTube as a source of information on kidney stone disease. Urology. 2011; 77: 558–562.

[11] Fast AM, Deibert CM, Hruby GW, Glassberg KI. Evaluating the quality of Internet health resources in pediatric urology. Journal of Pediatric Urology. 2013; 9: 151–156.

[12] Fode M, Nolsøe AB, Jacobsen FM, Russo GI, Østergren PB, Jensen CFS, et al. Quality of ınformation in YouTube videos on erectile dysfunction. Sexual Medicine. 2020; 8: 408–413.

[13] DISCERN: quality criteria for consumer health information. 2020. Available at: instrument.php (Accessed: 29 January 2021).

[14] Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 1999; 53: 105–111.

[15] Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controling and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: caveant lector et viewor-let the reader and viewer beware. The Journal of the American Medical Association. 1997; 277: 1244–1245.

[16] Nason GJ, Baker JF, Byrne DP, Noel J, Moore D, Kiely PJ. Scoliosis-specific information on the internet: has the “information highway” led to better information provision? Spine. 2012; 37: E1364–E1369.

[17] Drozd B, Couvillon E, Suarez A. Medical YouTube videos and methods of evaluation: literature review. JMIR Medical Education. 2018; 4: e3.

[18] Fischer J, Geurts J, Valderrabano V, Hügle T. Educational quality of YouTube videos on knee arthrocentesis. Journal of Clinical Rheumatology. 2013; 19: 373–376.

[19] Ho M, Stothers L, Lazare D, Tsang B, Macnab A. Evaluation of educational content of YouTube videos relating to neurogenic bladder and intermittent catheterization. Canadian Urological Association Journal. 2015; 9: 320–354.

[20] Mukewar S, Mani P, Wu X, Lopez R, Shen B. YouTube and inflammatory bowel disease. Journal of Crohn’s & Colitis. 2013; 7: 392–402.

[21] Ovenden CD, Brooks FM. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion YouTube videos as a source of patient education. Asian Spine Journal. 2018; 12: 987–991.

[22] Gul M, Diri MA. YouTube as a source of ınformation about premature ejaculation treatment. Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2019; 16: 1734–1740.

[23] Loeb S, Sengupta S, Butaney M, Macaluso JN Jr, Czarniecki SW, Rob-bins R, et al. Dissemination of misinformative and biased ınformation about prostate cancer on YouTube. European Urology. 2019; 75: 564–567.

[24] Herbert AS, Nemirovsky A, Hess DS, Walter D, Abraham NE, Loeb S, et al. Pelvic organ prolapse on YouTube: evaluation of consumer information. BJU International. 2020; 125: 759–760.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,200 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) DOAJ is a unique and extensive index of diverse open access journals from around the world, driven by a growing community, committed to ensuring quality content is freely available online for everyone.

SCImago The SCImago Journal & Country Rank is a publicly available portal that includes the journals and country scientific indicators developed from the information contained in the Scopus® database (Elsevier B.V.)

Publication Forum - JUFO (Federation of Finnish Learned Societies) Publication Forum is a classification of publication channels created by the Finnish scientific community to support the quality assessment of academic research.

Scopus: CiteScore 0.7 (2022) Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.

Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals, Series and Publishers Search for publication channels (journals, series and publishers) in the Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals, Series and Publishers to see if they are considered as scientific. (

Submission Turnaround Time