ArticleInternational breastfeeding journal2026
Quality and reliability of YouTube videos on breast engorgement.
Article in International breastfeeding journal, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBreast engorgement is a common and painful condition that can lead to the early cessation of breastfeeding. Many mothers turn to online platforms like YouTube for information and support, but the quality of this content is often unverified. This study aims to evaluate the quality and reliability of YouTube videos concerning breast engorgement.
methodsA systematic search was conducted on YouTube in June 2025 using six relevant keywords. After excluding videos that were non-English, irrelevant, duplicates, “Shorts,” or “vlogs,” 116 videos were included in the final analysis. Three independent researchers evaluated the videos using the DISCERN instrument, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) measurement tool, and the Global Quality Score (GQS). Video characteristics and popularity metrics (views, likes, comments) were also collected. Statistical analysis was performed to compare videos based on uploader characteristics.
resultsThe overall quality of the videos were moderate, with mean scores of 51.78, 2.25, 3.49 for DISCERN, JAMA, and GQS, respectively. Videos uploaded by healthcare professionals (n = 58) had significantly higher quality scores across all instruments (DISCERN: p < .001; JAMA: p = .015; GQS: p < .001), as well as longer durations (p = .007) and more likes (p = .002), compared to those uploaded by non-healthcare creators. While videos uploaded by healthcare professionals received significantly more likes (p = .002), those from non-healthcare sources had significantly higher viewer interaction rates (p < .001) and were more popular in terms of views (p < .05), highlighting a “quality–popularity paradox”. Correlation analysis revealed strong positive relationships between views and likes (r = .705, p < .001), and between likes and viewer interaction (r = .613, p < .001). While quality scores were positively correlated with popularity metrics, these associations were weak (e.g., GQS and views: r = .259, p = .005). No significant correlation was found between JAMA scores and popularity indicators (p > .05).
conclusionsWhile YouTube serves as a crucial information resource for mothers experiencing breast engorgement, the most popular videos are often not the most reliable. Therefore, ensuring that mothers receive individualized support in managing conditions like breast engorgement should remain a primary focus. Additionally, strategies to reduce misinformation and the implementation of verification systems for health-related content on platforms like YouTube should be considered.
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.