This study aimed to evaluate the quality and reliability of anesthesia-related videos on YouTube, a widely used online platform for patient education. A cross-sectional analysis was conducted on June 15, 2025. Using the keywords “anesthesia,” “general anesthesia,” “regional anesthesia,” “spinal anesthesia,” and “epidural anesthesia,” the first 50 English-language videos ranked by relevance were selected. Inclusion criteria were relevance to anesthesia, adequate audiovisual quality, and narration or subtitles. Data extracted included video characteristics (upload date, duration, views, likes, comments, and source). Two anesthesiologists independently assessed video quality using the Global Quality Scale (GQS, 1–5) and reliability using the modified DISCERN tool (1–5). Interobserver agreement was measured by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Statistical analysis was performed with independent t-tests and chi-square tests, with significance set at p < 0.05. The 50 videos had a cumulative 760,000 views, with a mean duration of 480 ± 360 s. Most were uploaded by anesthesiologists (70%), but only 40% originated from academic institutions. The mean GQS score was 3.70 ± 0.95, while the mean DISCERN score was 2.62 ± 1.22; only 18% of videos were classified as highly reliable. Interobserver agreement was excellent (ICC = 0.921 for GQS, ICC = 0.934 for DISCERN). Academic sources demonstrated significantly higher reliability scores compared to non-academic sources (p = 0.03). Risk and complication discussions were present in only 40% of videos, and long-term outcomes in 18%. Although YouTube provides accessible content on anesthesia, overall video quality and reliability remain limited, with only 18% of videos classified as highly reliable. The majority of videos did not adequately address risks, complications, or long-term outcomes (40% and 18%, respectively). Academic and professional involvement is needed to enhance the reliability of online patient education materials, as current determinants of quality appear to be source credibility rather than viewing metrics.
Kahramanlar et al. (Fri,) studied this question.