ArticlePeerJ2026
YouTube as a source of information on familial Mediterranean fever.
Article in PeerJ, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Familial Mediterranean fever (FMF) is the most common hereditary autoinflammatory disease. YouTube is a popular video-sharing platform that both patients and healthcare professionals access for medical information. This study aimed to assess the content, reliability, and quality of the YouTube videos related to FMF. To evaluate video quality and reliability, the Global Quality Scale (GQS) and DISCERN tool were used. Based on GQS scores, videos were categorized into high-, moderate-, and low-quality groups. Four groups were identified in terms of usefulness; useful information, misleading information, useful patient opinion, and misleading patient opinion. The video review was conducted on November 26, 2023. Fifty-three videos that met the inclusion criteria were included in our study. Among these videos, 33 (62.3%) were classified as useful information, 14 (26.4%) as misleading information, two (3.8%) as useful patient opinion, four (7.5%) as misleading patient opinion. Regarding quality, 21 (39.6%) videos were rated as low quality, 13 (24.5%) as moderate quality, and 19 (35.8%) as high quality. Videos uploaded by physicians were significantly more likely to contain useful information (
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.