Educational Quality, Reliability, and Content Scope of English-Language YouTube Videos on Keratoconus and Corneal Ectasia: A Cross-Sectional Study

Cross-Sectional Studyİngilizce YouTube Videolarında Keratokonus ve Korneal Ektazinin Eğitsel Kalitesi, Güvenilirliği ve İçerik Kapsamı: Kesitsel Çalışma Background: To evaluate the educational quality, reliability, treatment-information quality, and topic-specific content scope of English-language YouTube videos on keratoconus and corneal ectasia. Materials and Methods:This cross-sectional content analysis used a finalized working dataset dated December 14, 2025.A total of 167 videos were screened; 90 underwent structured extraction and 78 met the final eligibility criteria.Eligibility required that content be in English, be unique, and be directly relevant to keratoconus/corneal ectasia education.Videos were independently evaluated by two reviewers, and the evaluations were finalized by consensus using the JAMA benchmark criteria, the Global Quality Score (GQS), the keratoconus-specific content score (KCSS), and DISCERN.Correlations were examined with Spearman correlation analysis, and uploader group differences were tested with the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise comparisons.Results: Among 78 included videos, mean JAMA, GQS, KCSS, and DISCERN total scores were 2.67 ± 0.86, 3.78 ± 0.86, 18.28 ± 6.39, and 40.68 ± 10.99, respectively.All principal scoring systems were positively correlated with each other.Video duration was positively associated with all four quality scores.Academic/professional videos achieved the highest mean scores across the main instruments and outperformed commercial/industry videos on all major scales.In contrast, popularity metrics, such as views, likes, and views per day, were not reliable surrogates for educational value.Conclusion: Within this curated English-language sample, YouTube videos on keratoconus and corneal ectasia showed overall moderate-to-good educational value, but substantial heterogeneity remained, and the quality of treatment information was only fair.Academic sources performed best, whereas popularity was not a reliable indicator of content quality.Clinicians should actively direct patients toward vetted, institution-led resources.