J Korean Med Sci.  2025 Apr;40(13):e34. 10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e34.

Evaluating the Quality and Reliability of YouTube as a Source of Information on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Call to Publish More Quality Videos by Professionals

• Permenov BA
• Zimba O
• Yessirkepov M
• Qumar AB
• Suigenbayev D
• Kocyigit BF

• KMID: 2566821
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e34

Abstract

Background
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a medical intervention employed to provide life-sustaining support for patients. YouTube is a dynamic and widely utilized platform for distributing health-related information. The aim of this study was to evaluate ECMO-related videos on YouTube and assess the frequency of misleading information in the accumulation of ECMO videos.
Methods
On September 17, 2024, an in-depth examination on YouTube was conducted using search phrases “Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation” and “ECMO treatment.” The study included 55 selected videos. Video parameters and sources were analyzed. Content assessments were conducted utilizing the Global Quality Scale (GQS), the modified DISCERN instrument, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Benchmark Criteria, and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audio/Visual Materials (PEMAT-A/V). The authors conducted comparisons among quality groups.
Results
Among the 55 videos analyzed, 30.9% (n = 17) were categorized as low quality, 21.8% (n = 12) as intermediate quality, and 47.3% (n = 26) as high quality. Physicians (75%) provided the most high-quality videos. News outlets (83.3%) provided the most low-quality videos. No statistically significant difference was observed between quality groups in daily views, likes, and comments (P > 0.05). Significant correlations were identified between video duration and GQS (r = 0.585), modified DISCERN questionnaire (r = 0.557), JAMA Benchmark Criteria (r = 0.511), PEMAT-A/V Understandability (r = 0.530), and PEMAT-A/V Actionability scores (r = 0.433) (P < 0.001 for all correlation analyses).
Conclusion
There is a wide variety in the quality of YouTube ECMO videos. Although YouTube content created by physicians is more likely to provide accurate and beneficial information, substandard videos present a significant public health threat by disseminating misinformation. The critical role of quality control methods on social media platforms in ensuring the accurate and high-quality transmission of health-related information is readily evident.

Keyword

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation; ECMO Treatment; Social Media; Internet; Information Science

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 The flowchart delineates the procedure for selecting YouTube videos.

• 

  Fig. 2 Low, intermediate, and high-quality video distributions according to video sources.

• 

  Fig. 3 Correlation analyses between video content assessment instruments.The rho value between JAMA Benchmark Criteria and modified DISCERN questionnaire is 0.900. P < 0.001 in all correlation analyses.JAMA = Journal of the American Medical Association, GQS = Global Quality Scale, PEMAT-A/V = Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audio/Visual Materials.

Reference

1. Zeymer U, Freund A, Hochadel M, Ostadal P, Belohlavek J, Rokyta R, et al. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock: an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet. 2023; 402(10410):1338–1346. PMID: 37643628.

2. Kim TW, Kim WY, Park S, Lee SH, Park O, Kim T, et al. Risk factors for the mortality of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in a non-centralized setting: a nationwide study. J Korean Med Sci. 2024; 39(8):e75. PMID: 38442718.

3. Fainberg NA, Morrison WE, West S, Hasz R, Kirschen MP. Organ donation from patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation at the time of death. Crit Care Explor. 2022; 4(12):e0812. PMID: 36567782.

4. Wieruszewski PM, Ortoleva JP, Cormican DS, Seelhammer TG. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in acute respiratory failure. Pulm Ther. 2023; 9(1):109–126. PMID: 36670314.

5. Tomarchio E, Momigliano F, Giosa L, Collins PD, Barrett NA, Camporota L. The intricate physiology of veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: an overview for clinicians. Perfusion. 2024; 39(1_suppl):49S–65S. PMID: 38654449.

6. Ostadal P, Rokyta R, Karasek J, Kruger A, Vondrakova D, Janotka M, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the therapy of cardiogenic shock: results of the ECMO-CS randomized clinical trial. Circulation. 2023; 147(6):454–464. PMID: 36335478.

7. Rabie AA, Azzam MH, Al-Fares AA, Abdelbary A, Mufti HN, Hassan IF, et al. Implementation of new ECMO centers during the COVID-19 pandemic: experience and results from the Middle East and India. Intensive Care Med. 2021; 47(8):887–895. PMID: 34156477.

8. Assouline B, Combes A, Schmidt M. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in COVID-19 associated acute respiratory distress syndrome: a narrative review. J Intensive Med. 2022; 3(1):4–10. PMID: 36785580.

9. Kaplan K, Solak Y. Evaluation of YouTube videos on hepatocellular carcinoma. J Korean Med Sci. 2023; 38(7):e50. PMID: 36808545.

10. Rillig MC. Creating YouTube and TikTok videos is improving my lab leadership. Nature. 2023; Forthcoming. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-023-00703-z.

11. Lee KN, Son GH, Park SH, Kim Y, Park ST. YouTube as a source of information and education on hysterectomy. J Korean Med Sci. 2020; 35(25):e196. PMID: 32597042.

12. Kocyigit BF, Akaltun MS. Does YouTube provide high quality information? Assessment of secukinumab videos. Rheumatol Int. 2019; 39(7):1263–1268. PMID: 31069444.

13. Sui W, Sui A, Rhodes RE. What to watch: practical considerations and strategies for using YouTube for research. Digit Health. 2022; 8:20552076221123707. PMID: 36105625.

14. Zhaksylyk A, Yessirkepov M, Akyol A, Kocyigit BF. YouTube as a source of information on public health ethics. J Korean Med Sci. 2024; 39(7):e61. PMID: 38412608.

15. Karataş L, Utkan Karasu A, Demirsoy N. Is YouTube a sufficient and reliable source to inform patients about cardiac rehabilitation?: a cross-sectional study. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev. 2024; 44(4):239–247. PMID: 38875164.

16. Kocyigit BF, Akaltun MS, Sahin AR. YouTube as a source of information on COVID-19 and rheumatic disease link. Clin Rheumatol. 2020; 39(7):2049–2054. PMID: 32447603.

17. Wang H, Yan C, Wu T, Zhang X, He J, Liu Z, et al. YouTube online videos as a source for patient education of cervical spondylosis-a reliability and quality analysis. BMC Public Health. 2023; 23(1):1831. PMID: 37730621.

18. Kocyigit BF, Nacitarhan V, Koca TT, Berk E. YouTube as a source of patient information for ankylosing spondylitis exercises. Clin Rheumatol. 2019; 38(6):1747–1751. PMID: 30645752.

19. Tolu S, Yurdakul OV, Basaran B, Rezvani A. English-language videos on YouTube as a source of information on self-administer subcutaneous anti-tumour necrosis factor agent injections. Rheumatol Int. 2018; 38(7):1285–1292. PMID: 29761222.

20. Etzel CM, Bokshan SL, Forster TA, Owens BD. A quality assessment of YouTube content on shoulder instability. Phys Sportsmed. 2022; 50(4):289–294. PMID: 34121601.

21. Paylan Akkoç C, Orgun F. Psychometric testing of the Turkish version of the patient education materials assessment tool. Florence Nightingale J Nurs. 2023; 31(3):180–187. PMID: 37823828.

22. Karakoyun A, Yildirim A. YouTube videos as a source of information concerning Behçet’s disease: a reliability and quality analysis. Rheumatol Int. 2021; 41(12):2117–2123. PMID: 34590188.

23. Suarez-Lledo V, Alvarez-Galvez J. Prevalence of health misinformation on social media: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2021; 23(1):e17187. PMID: 33470931.

24. Onder ME, Zengin O. YouTube as a source of information on gout: a quality analysis. Rheumatol Int. 2021; 41(7):1321–1328. PMID: 33646342.

25. Osman W, Mohamed F, Elhassan M, Shoufan A. Is YouTube a reliable source of health-related information? A systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 2022; 22(1):382. PMID: 35590410.

26. Kocyigit BF, Akyol A. YouTube as a source of information on COVID-19 vaccination in rheumatic diseases. Rheumatol Int. 2021; 41(12):2109–2115. PMID: 34562126.

27. Onder ME, Onder CE, Zengin O. Quality of English-language videos available on YouTube as a source of information on osteoporosis. Arch Osteoporos. 2022; 17(1):19. PMID: 35059873.

28. Aydin MA, Akyol H. Quality of information available on YouTube videos pertaining to thyroid cancer. J Cancer Educ. 2020; 35(3):599–605. PMID: 30838529.

29. Altun A, Askin A, Sengul I, Aghazada N, Aydin Y. Evaluation of YouTube videos as sources of information about complex regional pain syndrome. Korean J Pain. 2022; 35(3):319–326. PMID: 35768987.

30. Moulton ST, Türkay S, Kosslyn SM. Does a presentation’s medium affect its message? PowerPoint, Prezi, and oral presentations. PLoS One. 2017; 12(7):e0178774. PMID: 28678855.

31. Assadi R, Gasparyan AY. Editing, publishing and aggregating video articles: do we need a scholarly approach? J Korean Med Sci. 2015; 30(9):1211–1212. PMID: 26339158.

32. Zimba O, Gasparyan AY. Social media platforms: a primer for researchers. Reumatologia. 2021; 59(2):68–72. PMID: 33976459.