ArticleNutrients2026
Sarcopenia and Nutrition on YouTube: A Content Quality and Reliability Assessment.
Article in Nutrients, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesSarcopenia is a prevalent age-related condition strongly influenced by protein intake. This study assessed the quality, evidence base, and practical utility of YouTube videos on nutrition and sarcopenia.
methodsA structured YouTube search (We searched YouTube in April 2024 using the term 'sarcopenia diet) identified 41 eligible videos. Three trained raters independently assessed each video using the Global Quality Scale (GQS), DISCERN, JAMA benchmarks, subjective impression ratings, technical quality indicators, and additional binary variables. Interrater reliability was examined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Fleiss' Kappa. Reviewer comments were analyzed qualitatively using Mayring's structured content analysis.
resultsOverall video quality varied substantially. ICCs indicated moderate to high agreement for DISCERN (0.698), JAMA (0.702), and subjective impression ratings (0.779), but minimal agreement for sound and video quality. Fleiss' Kappa showed moderate agreement for scientific soundness (κ = 0.522) and advertisement content (κ = 0.385), while agreement was low for health-related risks and dietary recommendations. Qualitative analysis identified frequent concerns regarding insufficient scientific evidence, vague or impractical protein guidance, limited relevance for older adults, and personal bias; positive features were less common.
conclusionsYouTube nutrition content on sarcopenia shows substantial variability and frequent deficits in evidence-based quality and practical relevance. While some videos provide useful introductory information, many are of limited value for lay audiences. Strengthening digital health literacy and expanding expert-driven, evidence-based online resources are essential to support informed decision-making and preventive strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.