Misinformation in spinal cord rehabilitation on YouTube: Enhancing standards for patient safety

Abstract

Background

Spinal cord injury is a complex condition affecting millions globally, often requiring extensive rehabilitation. YouTube is increasingly utilized by spinal cord injury-patients and caregivers for rehabilitation information, despite potential misinformation risks. However, few studies have assessed the quality of spinal cord injury -related content on this platform.

Aim

This study evaluates the quality, reliability, and effectiveness of YouTube videos on spinal cord rehabilitation to identify credible resources and improve patient education.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted on YouTube using keywords related to spinal cord injury rehabilitation, yielding 74 videos that met inclusion criteria. These were assessed independently by two reviewers for quality indicators using DISCERN, JAMA, and Global Quality Score criteria. Viewer engagement metrics such as views, likes, and comments were also analyzed.

Results

Most videos were of low to moderate quality, with only 24% rated as high quality. Videos uploaded by physicians received significantly higher quality ratings compared to those from other sources (p < 0.01), although their view counts were generally lower. Viewer engagement was positively correlated with likes and comments but inversely correlated with quality metrics, indicating that popular videos often lacked reliable information. Among the included videos, 28.4% were uploaded by physicians, 52.7% by physiotherapists, and 18.9% by others, providing insight into the source reliability.

Conclusion

The overall quality of spinal cord injury rehabilitation videos on YouTube is low, posing risks for misinformation among patients. Efforts are needed to enhance the accessibility of scientifically accurate information. Healthcare professionals and digital platforms should collaborate to improve the quality of health-related videos, supporting informed decision-making for spinal cord injury patients.

Keywords

spinal cord injury rehabilitation youTube misinformation patient education

Introduction

Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a complex and devastating medical condition that may lead to varying degrees of motor, sensory, and autonomic impairments. The impact of SCI extends beyond physical limitations, often affecting psychological well-being, social interactions, and overall quality of life. Worldwide, more than 15 million individuals are living with SCI.¹ In addition to motor, sensory, and autonomic impairments, SCI is frequently accompanied by complications such as spasticity, pressure ulcers, neurogenic bladder and bowel dysfunction, and chronic pain all of which necessitate comprehensive and long-term rehabilitation efforts. The documented prevalence is between 440 and 526 cases per million people.² SCI most frequently result from motor vehicle accidents and falls, with individuals under the age of 50 and males being at higher risk due to demographic factors.³ It constitutes a serious medical issue affecting not only individuals but also healthcare providers and the health care system.⁴ The rehabilitation process plays a crucial role in helping patients regain functional independence and improve their overall quality of life. Rehabilitation for SCI typically involves a multidisciplinary approach, incorporating physical therapy, occupational therapy, and psychological support. The goals of rehabilitation include improving mobility, enhancing activities of daily living, managing complications, and promoting psychosocial adjustment. Recent advancements in rehabilitation techniques, such as the use of robotics, virtual reality, and activity-based therapies, have shown promise in enhancing recovery outcomes.^5,6

Over the last twenty years, the internet has evolved into a key resource for healthcare information for patients and caregivers, with video becoming a commonly used format. With over two billion monthly active users, YouTube, the primary video platform, provides an opportunity to share information and facilitate learning. It is increasingly being utilized by patients, their families, and healthcare professionals to obtain health information, making it a popular choice. Patients and caregivers can easily access a vast array of content, including instructional videos, rehabilitation techniques, personal recovery stories, and expert discussions. Despite its benefits, there are concerns about the accuracy of the information and the potential for ineffective or harmful practices. For this reason, it is essential to carry out research to assess the reliability and accuracy of this information.^7–9 Patients and caregivers often turn to online videos for health information due to several practical barriers, including limited access to healthcare professionals, long waiting times, geographical limitations, and financial constraints. Online platforms like YouTube offer easily accessible, on-demand, and cost-free information, which is particularly appealing for individuals managing chronic conditions such as SCI. Moreover, the ability to replay content and maintain perceived anonymity makes video-based resources even more attractive. Studies have highlighted these motivations as key factors driving the growing reliance on digital platforms for health-related education and decision-making.^10,11

YouTube hosts numerous videos that discuss diseases and their treatments. While various studies have assessed YouTube video quality in other rehabilitation domains, limited attention has been paid specifically to the quality and reliability of videos related to SCI rehabilitation.^12,13 Considering that spinal cord injuries (SCI) are most commonly observed in young adults, who also exhibit high rates of social media usage, we believe that researching this topic is important.¹⁴ Thus, the aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness, quality, and reliability of the videos on the SCI rehabilitation. By identifying high-quality resources, we hope to enhance the accessibility of credible information for patients, ultimately improving rehabilitation outcomes.

Methods

Ethical considerations

Ethical considerations were observed throughout this study, and no identifiable personal data were collected. Since this research focused on publicly accessible information on YouTube, ethical approval was not required, and informed consent was not applicable.

Search strategy and video selection

The study adhered to ethical guidelines for the analysis of online content. To evaluate the quality of YouTube videos related to spinal cord rehabilitation, a systematic search was conducted on the YouTube platform (https://www.youtube.com) in August 2024. The search terms used were “spinal cord rehabilitation,” “spinal cord injury exercises,” “spinal cord injuryrehabilitation “ “spinal cord physical therapy,” “spinal cord injury recovery,” and “spinal cord exercise therapy.” Each keyword was entered separately, and the search results for the first 100 videos were reviewed for each term. We considered this sample size adequate for a robust statistical analysis, following previous research methodologies used in similar YouTube-based health content studies.^15,16

The search was performed using the incognito mode in Google Chrome to avoid the influence of prior user history on search outcomes. No additional filters or sorting options were applied beyond the default “relevance” criterion used by YouTube, thus simulating the search behavior of an average user. After reviewing the search results, videos were screened for inclusion based on the following criteria: Videos had to be in English, focus on spinal cord rehabilitation, and provide educational or informational content related to exercises, recovery, or physical therapy for SCI were included. Videos not in English, duplicates, those with content unrelated to spinal cord rehabilitation, or videos with a duration of less than 30 s were excluded.

Following the application of these criteria, a total of 74 unique English-language videos were selected for further evaluation.

Video assessment

The selected videos were independently assessed by two trained reviewers (ÖK – a Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation specialist, and SK – a Neurologist).

Each reviewer evaluated all 74 videos separately and blindly using the DISCERN, JAMA, and GQS tools.

Prior to formal evaluation, both reviewers received detailed instructions and were calibrated using a subset of 5 random videos to ensure consistency.

The role of each reviewer was equal, and there was no division of tasks; both applied all rating tools to every video.

The evaluation focused on understandability, actionability, reliability, and overall quality using standardized assessment tools:

DISCERN score

The DISCERN tool, widely used in health information quality research, consists of 16 questions divided into three sections. Eight questions assess the reliability of the information, seven evaluate the quality of treatment options presented, and one provides an overall quality rating. Each question is scored on a scale of 1 (low quality) to 5 (high quality), yielding a total score between 16 and 80.¹⁷

JAMA benchmark criteria

The JAMA score evaluates four key quality aspects: authorship, attribution, disclosure of conflicts of interest, and currency of the content. Each aspect is assigned a score of 0 or 1, with a maximum possible score of 4 indicating the highest quality of information.¹⁸

Global quality score (GQS)

The GQS assesses the flow, comprehensibility, and ease of use of the presented information on a scale from 1 (poor quality) to 5 (excellent quality). This tool evaluates the video's educational value and how well it conveys information to the viewer.¹⁹

Popularity and viewer interaction analysis

In addition to content quality assessments, the popularity of each video was analyzed based on several metrics, including:

Number of Views, Likes, and Comments: These metrics were used to gauge viewer engagement and the overall popularity of the videos.

Uploader Information: It was noted whether the person or organization uploading the video was a healthcare professional or an institution with a background in health.

Viewer Interaction Rate: The interaction rate was calculated using the formula: Viewer Interaction Rate (%) = [(Number of Likes – Number of Dislikes) / Total Number of Views] × 100. This metric served to evaluate audience engagement and the perceived value of the content.

Blinded assessment procedure

To ensure unbiased evaluations, all video metadata (e.g., likes, dislikes, views, uploader identity) were concealed during the assessment phase.

Each reviewer performed their evaluations independently and blinded to the other's scores.

In cases where scoring discrepancies occurred, consensus was reached through discussion.

Inter-rater reliability was calculated using Cohen's kappa (κ = 0.886), indicating strong agreement between reviewers.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS Statistics version 21, released in 2012 by IBM and Jamovi version 2.2, released in 2021 by Jamovi Project. ANOVA was used for normally distributed data comparisons between the three groups (Physician, Physiotherapist, Others uploaders), with homogeneity checked using Levene's test. In contrast, the Kruskal-Wallis test was applied for non-normally distributed values. Post hoc Tukey test was used for pairwise group comparisons.

Pearson correlation analysis was used for data that followed a normal distribution, while Spearman Rho correlation analysis was used for data that did not. The significance level was set at p < 0.05.

To assess the internal consistency of the ratings given by the two raters, Cronbach's Alpha reliability analysis was performed on data obtained from Discern, JAMA, and Global Quality Scale assessments.

Results

A total of 74 You Tube videos were included in the study. Regarding the source of the videos, 21(28.4%) were created by physician, while 39 (52,7%) were created by physiotherapist and 14 (18,9%) by others. The two commentators evaluating the videos demonstrated a substantial level of agreement (kappa value = 0.886). The mean number of views per video was 40,193.57 ± 69,775.79. When assessing the overall qualityof the videos using the DISCERN instrument, 56 (66.3%) were ratedas low-moderate quality and 18 (24%) were rated as high quality. High-quality videos were defined as those with a DISCERN score of ≥ 63, corresponding to the upper tertile of the scoring range, consistent with prior literatüre.²⁰ Descriptive statistics of the 74 videos, including uploader type, video length, and engagement metrics, are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics of spinal cord injuries rehabilitation videos.

		N	%	Mean ± Std	Median (min-max)
Number of Views		74		40193,57 ± 69775,79	13132,50 (51–373713)
Number of Comments		65		18 ± 50,65	1 (0–367)
Number of Likes		74		311,96 ± 530,35	65 (0–3000)
Number of Dislikes		74		0	0
Time Since Upload (mounth)		74		63,79 ± 34,69	57,50 (4–204)
Video Length (minute)		74		3,63 ± 4,80	2,33 (0,50–28,28)
Daily Viewing Rate		74		22,82 ± 41,61	6,49 (0,06–214,78)
Viewer İnteraction		74		0,90 ± 0,88	0,76 (0–5,82)
Discern total score		74		36,95 ± 11,97	36 (17–71)
Discern Quality	Low/Modarate	56	76%
Discern Quality	High	18	24%
JAMA score		74		2,18 ± 0,80	2 (0–4)
Global Quality Scale		74		2,23 ± 1,11	2 (1–5)

JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association.

When all parameters were compared between physician, physiotherapist and other uploaders, it was found that the number of views of videos uploaded by physician was significantly lower than the other two groups (p < 0.01, p < 0.05 respectively), but the educational quality of these videos was higher than the other two groups (all p < 0.01) as shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Analysis of videos based on uploader characteristics.

		Physician(1)	Physiotherapist(2)	Others(3)	p	P1–2	P1–3	P2–3
Number of Views(Meian (min-max))		3738(79–217854)	20335(51–283430)	36862,50(770–373713)	0,03*	0,01*	0,04*	0,76
Number of Comments(Meian (min-max))		1(0–111)	1(0–99)	2(0–367)	0,50	0,40	0,32	0,47
Number of Likes(Meian (min-max))		12(0–1400)	129(0–1900)	141,50(0–3000)	0,02*	<0,01**	0,17	0,52
Number of Dislikes(Meian (min-max))		0	0	0	-	-	-	-
Time Since Upload (mounth)(Meian (min-max))		73(4–123)	52(9–204)	67(20–117)	0,09	0,09	0,81	0,06
Video Length (minute)(Meian (min-max))		2,63(1–28,28)	1,73(0,50–9,78)	4,78(0,50–27,53)	<0,01**	<0,01**	0,70	0,01*
Daily Viewing Rate(Meian (min-max))		2,05(0,20–99,48)	10,20(0,06–2,32)	14,19(0,23–214,78)	0,01*	<0,01**	0,06	0,81
Viewer İnteraction(Meian (min-max))		0,54(0–5,82)	0,86(0–2,32)	0,66(0–2,34)	0,38	0,17	0,61	0,52
Discern score(Meian (min-max))		45(25–71)	33(21–50)	32,50(17–48)	<0,01**	<0,01**	0,01*	0,74
Discern Quality,(n(%))	Low/ Modarate	11(52,4%)	32(82,1%)	13(92,9%)	0,01*
Discern Quality,(n(%))	High	21(47,6%)	3917,9%)	14(7,1%)	0,01*
JAMA score		3(2–4)	2(0–3)	2(1–3)	<0,01**	<0,01**	<0,01**	0,48
Global Quality Scale		3(1–5)	2(1–4)	2(1–3)	<0,01**	<0,01**	<0,01**	0,25

*p < 0.05.

**p < 0.01.

JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association.

The number of daily views was positively correlated with likes, comments and video age, but negatively correlated with JAMA (all p < 0.05) Video Length was correlated with Discern scores, JAMA scores and GQS (all p < 0.01) (Table 3). A strong positive correlation was found between the number of views, the number of likes, and the daily viewing rate (all p < 0.05, r = 0.85, r = 0.95) as detailed in Table 3.

Table 3.

Correlation between some video parameters and the scoring systems.

		Number of Comments	Number of Likes	Time Since Upload	Video Length	Daily Viewing Rate	Viewer İnteraction	Discern	JAMA	Global Quality Scale
Number of Views	r	0..44**	0.85**	0.30**	0.07	0.95**	0.11	−0.07	−0.31**	0.01
Number of Views	p	<0.01	<0.01	0.01	0.55	<0.01	0.34	0.58	0.01	0.97
Number of Comments	r	-	0.52**	0.21	0.48**	0.42**	0.47**	−0.08	−0.19	−0.03
Number of Comments	p	-	<0.01	0.09	<0.01	0.01	<0.01	0.55	0.13	0.83
Number of Likes	r	-	-	0.12	0.13	0.85**	0.49**	−0.01	−0.25*	0.04
Number of Likes	p	-	-	0.30	0.26	<0.01	<0.01	0.94	0.03	0.73
Time Since Upload (mounth)	r	-	-	-	0.24*	0.06	−0.30*	0.01	0.01	0.09
Time Since Upload (mounth)	p	-	-	-	0.04	0.61	0.01	0.94	0.96	0.46
Video Length (minute)	r	-	-	-	-	0.04	0.10	0.34**	0.30**	0.39**
Video Length (minute)	p	-	-	-	-	0.71	0.41	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01
Daily Viewing Rate	r	-	-	-	-	-	0.23*	−0.06	−0.28*	0.01
Daily Viewing Rate	p	-	-	-	-	-	0.05	0.63	0.02	0.99
Viewer İnteraction	r	-	-	-	-	-	-	−0.01	−0.18	−0.03
Viewer İnteraction	p	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.99	0.12	0.82
Discern	r	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.59**	0.89**
Discern	p	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	<0.01	<0.01
JAMA	r	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.60**
JAMA	p	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	<0.01**

r: Spearman's rho.

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association.

A reliability analysis was conducted to assess the internal consistency of the data obtained from the Discern, JAMA and Global Quality Scale ratings by two raters, and the Cronbach's Alpha was 0.88. This value indicates that there is high internal consistency between raters and that the ratings given by both raters are highly reliable and consistent across the evaluated videos.

Discussion

In this study, we evaluated the quality, reliability, and educational value of YouTube videos related to SCI rehabilitation. Among the 74 analyzed videos, only 24% were categorized as high quality. Videos produced by physicians had higher educational quality compared to those by physiotherapists or others, despite having fewer views. A substantial inter-rater agreement was observed (κ = 0.886), and high internal consistency was demonstrated (Cronbach's α = 0.88). We also found significant correlations between viewer engagement metrics and content

Physical activity, especially in the chronic phase, has been shown to have a positive impact on cognitive functions. Therefore, neuromuscular rehabilitation and cognitive rehabilitation are generally considered together.²¹ Most videos lacked clear, evidence-based information regarding treatment protocols, potential complications, and the efficacy of methods used. Especially in complex treatment processes like spinal cord rehabilitation, inadequate and incomplete information can negatively affect patient adherence to treatment and delay recovery. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the quality of health-related videos on platforms like YouTube, encouraging content creators to provide more comprehensive information on treatment processes and to explicitly address potential complications. It is clear that healthcare professionals should not only focus on treatment methods in their videos but also provide detailed information on the advantages, disadvantages, and risks associated with these methods.

The widespread use of the internet also plays a significant role in accessing health information. While social media platforms and various search engines enable users to quickly and easily access information, questions often arise regarding the accuracy and reliability of this information, especially in the health field. Studies show that many people turn to the internet as their primary source for health-related information.²² However, since platforms like YouTube are often commercially focused, the content of videos is not subject to detailed scientific scrutiny. This can lead to issues concerning the quality and reliability of videos, particularly when it comes to critical health information. This concern has also been documented in large-scale reviews, which demonstrate the widespread dissemination of health-related misinformation through social media platforms.²³

Research in fields such as physical medicine and rehabilitation has shown that YouTube videos vary in quality, containing both high-quality and misleading information. For instance, videos on knee osteoarthritis treatment are generally found to be of higher quality,²⁴ whereas those on vestibular rehabilitation,²⁵ stroke rehabilitation²⁶ and total knee arthroplasty²⁷ tend to have lower educational quality. Additionally, studies have shown that videos related to fibromyalgia also provide low-quality information.²⁸

In our study, we found that videos produced by non-health professionals were more popular than those created by healthcare professionals. This popularity may stem from factors such as visual appeal, personal stories, and the ability to establish an emotional connection. These videos resonate more strongly with viewers by addressing their daily lives and cultural norms, thereby creating higher audience engagement. However, content produced by healthcare professionals generally includes more scientific terminology, which can make it harder for viewers to understand. Despite this popularity, non-professional content has significant shortcomings in terms of medical accuracy and reliability.

To prevent the spread of misleading information and ensure that patients have access to accurate information, certain strategic steps need to be taken. Digital media literacy among healthcare professionals should be enhanced, and training programs should be organized to help these professionals’ videos reach a wider audience. These training sessions should not only focus on how to convey medical information but also cover skills for producing effective content on digital platforms and engaging with audiences. As a result, healthcare professionals can create more appealing and accessible content while preserving scientific accuracy. Additionally, user education and awareness campaigns should aim to develop viewers’ skills in critically assessing health-related videos. Teaching viewers how to discern accurate information will play a crucial role in reducing the impact of misleading content. In this context, implementing digital health literacy programs in schools and community centers could be recommended.

Improving algorithms is also of great importance. Platforms like YouTube should develop content recommendation systems based not only on popularity or view count but also on the scientific accuracy of the content. This could help ensure that accurate information reaches a wider audience. Algorithms should contribute to highlighting verified content while pushing back videos that contain misleading or incomplete information. Regulatory bodies and independent verification systems must also be an integral part of this process. Regular monitoring of health content on platforms is essential to prevent the spread of misinformation. Reviewing content by independent health authorities or verification organizations could determine whether videos meet scientific standards, and mechanisms such as a “scientific approval symbol” could be introduced. Encouraging viewers to prefer content bearing this symbol could promote the spread of accurate information.

New collaborations should be established from a public health perspective. Partnerships between healthcare professionals, public health organizations, and digital platforms could facilitate the more effective dissemination of scientific information on digital media. For instance, government health agencies and medical schools could collaborate on joint projects with digital platforms to support the production of verified content. We believe these collaborations would be a strong step toward promoting accurate information in the digital world.

This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the quality assessment of YouTube videos is inherently subjective, despite the use of standardized evaluation criteria. Different evaluators might interpret the criteria differently, potentially leading to variability in scoring. Additionally, the study only analyzed videos in a specific language (or languages), which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other linguistic or cultural contexts. Furthermore, the rapidly changing nature of online platforms like YouTube means that video content, algorithms, and user engagement can evolve quickly. As a result, the findings of this study may not fully reflect future content trends. Finally, due to limitations in access to certain videos or regional restrictions, a comprehensive evaluation of all available content could not be achieved. Future research may benefit from longitudinal studies and the inclusion of multiple languages to provide a more comprehensive overview of the quality and reliability of health-related content on YouTube.

In conclusion, this study highlights the low overall quality of YouTube videos related to spinal cord rehabilitation, particularly those created by non-health professionals. Despite their popularity, these videos often lack medical accuracy and reliability, posing a risk for misinformation. To improve access to accurate health information, there is a need for enhanced digital media literacy among healthcare professionals, strategic algorithm adjustments by platforms, and collaborations with public health organizations. Together, these steps could contribute to a more reliable information environment for patients seeking guidance on complex treatment processes.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

There are no acknowledgments for this study.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This broadcast is based solely on the analysis of responses generated by an online tool and does not involve human participants. Therefore, ethical committee approval is not required. Additionally, no personal or sensitive data have been collected or analyzed during the broadcast.

Consent for publication

Not applicable. This manuscript does not include identifiable data from human participants, and all authors consent to the publication of the findings.

Authors contributions

Ö.K.: Conceptualization, methodology, writing—original draft prepara-tion. S.D.: Data curation, formal analysis, visualization, data collection, resources, editing. S.T.: Statistical analysis, review& editing, formal analysis. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data availability statement

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

World Health Organization . Spinal cord injury [Internet], https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/spinal-cord-injury (2024, cited 30 October 2024).

Ralph

Choi

Back

, et al. Regenerative medicine approaches for the treatment of spinal cord injuries: progress and challenges. Acta Biomater 2024; 1742: 00613–5.

Ren

, et al. Spinal cord injury: molecular mechanisms and therapeutic interventions. Signal Transduct Target Ther 2023; 8: 245.

Russo

Mangan

Galetta

, et al. Update on spinal cord injury management. Clin Spine Surg 2020; 33: 258–264.

Hornby

Reisman

Ward

, et al. Clinical practice guideline to improve locomotor function following chronic stroke, incomplete spinal cord injury, and brain injury. J Neurol Phys Ther 2020; 44: 49–100.

Gerber

Deshpande

Prabhakar

, et al. Narrative review of clinical practice guidelines for rehabilitation of people with spinal cord injury: 2010–2020. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2021; 100: 501–512.

Singh

Liu

Capasso

, et al. YouTube as a source of information for obstructive sleep apnea. Am J Otolaryngol 2018; 39: 378–382.

Langford

Loeb

. Perceived patient-provider communication quality and sociodemographic factors associated with watching health-related videos on YouTube: a cross-sectional analysis. J Med Internet Res 2019; 21: e13512.

Diaz

Griffith

, et al. Patients’ use of the Internet for medical information. J Gen Intern Med 2002; 17: 180–185.

10.

Stellefson

Hanik

Chaney

, et al. Ehealth literacy among college students: a systematic review with implications for eHealth education. J Med Internet Res 2011; 13: e102.

11.

Moorhead

Hazlett

Harrison

, et al. A new dimension of health care: systematic review of the uses, benefits, and limitations of social media for health communication. J Med Internet Res 2013; 15: e85.

12.

Assylbek

Zimba

Akyol

, et al. YouTube as a source of information for stroke rehabilitation: a cross-sectional analysis of quality and reliability of videos. Rheumatol Int 2025; 45: 1–8.

13.

Jildeh

Abbas

, et al. YouTube is a poor-quality source for patient information on rehabilitation and return to sports after hip arthroscopy. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil 2021; 3: e1055–e1063.

14.

Thietje

Hirschfeld

Epidemiology of spinal cord injury. In: Neurological aspects of spinal cord injury. Cham: Springer, 2017, pp.3–17.

15.

Kara

Ozduran

Kara

, et al. Assessing the quality and reliability of YouTube videos as a source of information on inflammatory back pain. PeerJ 2024; 12: e17215.

16.

Yildiz

Toros

. The quality, reliability, and popularity of YouTube education videos for vestibular rehabilitation: a cross-sectional study. Otol Neurotol 2021; 42: e1077–e1083.

17.

Ozduran

Büyükçoban

. A content analysis of the reliability and quality of YouTube videos as a source of information on health-related post-COVID pain. PeerJ 2022; 10: e14089.

18.

Silberg

Lundberg

Musacchio

. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the internet: caveant lector et viewor—Let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA 1997; 277: 1244–1245.

19.

Bernard

Langille

Hughes

, et al. A systematic review of patient inflammatory bowel disease information resources on the World Wide Web. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102: 2070–2077.

20.

Kocyigit

Akyol

. YouTube as a source of information on COVID-19 vaccination in rheumatic diseases. Rheumatol Int 2021; 41: 2109–2115.

21.

Harvey

. Physiotherapy rehabilitation for people with spinal cord injuries. J Physiother 2016; 62: 4–11.

22.

Brown

Duguid

. The social life of information. Updated ed. Cambridge (MA): Harvard Business Review Press, 2017.

23.

Wang

McKee

Torbica

, et al. Systematic literature review on the spread of health-related misinformation on social media. Soc Sci Med 2019; 240: 112552.

24.

Bağcier

Yorulmaz

Temel

. YouTube as a source of patient information for knee osteoarthritis exercises. Turk J Osteoporos 2021; 27: 133–139.

25.

Yildiz

Toros

. The quality, reliability, and popularity of YouTube education videos for vestibular rehabilitation: a cross-sectional study. Otol Neurotol 2021; 42: e1077–e1083.

26.

Szmuda

Özdemir

Ali

, et al. YouTube as a source of patient information for stroke: a content-quality and reliability analysis. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2020; 29: 105065.

27.

Wong

Chung

Yan

, et al. YouTube is a poor source of patient information for knee arthroplasty and knee osteoarthritis. Arthroplasty Today 2019; 5: 78–82.

28.

Ozsoy-Unubol

Alanbay-Yagci

. YouTube as a source of information on fibromyalgia. Int J Rheum Dis 2021; 24: 197–202.