Evaluating the Quality and Reliability of YouTube Videos on Acute Epididymitis: A Cross-Sectional Study

Abstract

Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the reliability, quality, and educational value of YouTube videos related to acute epididymitis, a common urological condition for which many individuals seek information online. Material And Methods: On May 15, 2025, a cross-sectional search was conducted on YouTube using the terms “acute epididymitis,” “epididymitis,” and “epididymo-orchitis.” To reduce algorithmic bias, the search was performed using incognito mode with a cleared history and a US-based VPN connection. The first 100 videos from each term were screened (total: 300). After applying exclusion criteria, 121 videos were included. Two reviewers independently assessed all videos. A third evaluator resolved disagreements. Video content was evaluated using three standardized tools: DISCERN, Global Quality Scale (GQS), and JAMA benchmark criteria. Videos were categorized as either applicable or deceptive based on scientific accuracy and completeness. Results: Out of 121 videos, 85 (70.2%) were found to be useful. Videos uploaded by medical professionals and institutions had significantly higher quality scores across all evaluation tools. Helpful videos had a longer average duration compared to deceptive ones. Excellent inter-rater agreement was achieved for all scoring tools. No significant correlation was observed between the number of views or likes and the reliability of the video content. Conclusion: YouTube hosts a substantial number of high-quality videos on acute epididymitis, especially those produced by medical professionals. However, the presence of misleading content highlights the need for greater involvement from healthcare providers in creating accurate, patient-centered educational material on digital platforms.

Keywords

• acute epididymitis
• YouTube
• video quality assessment

References

1. 1. EAU Guidelines. Edn. Presented at the EAU Annual Congress, Madrid, 2025. ISBN:978–94–92671–29–5.
2. 2. Çek M, Sturdza L, Pilatz A. Acute and chronic epididymitis. Eur Urol Suppl. 2017;16(4):124–31.
3. 3. Gordhan CG, Sadeghi-Nejad H. Scrotal pain: evaluation and management. Korean J Urol. 2015;56:3–11.
4. 4. Leslie SW, Sajjad H, Siref LE. Chronic testicular pain and orchalgia. StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing;2021.
5. 5. Pilatz A, Hossain H, Kaiser R, Mankertz A, Schuettler CG, Domann E, et al. Acute epididymitis revisited: impact of molecular diagnostics on etiology and contemporary guideline recommendations. Eur Urol. 2015;68(3):428–35.
6. 6. Granitsiotis P, Kirk D. Chronic testicular pain: an overview. Eur Urol. 2004;45:430–6.
7. 7. Tojuola B, Layman J, Kartal I, Gudeloglu A, Brahmbhatt J, Parekattil S. Chronic orchialgia: review of treatments old and new. Indian J Urol. 2016;32:21–6.
8. 8. Harnisch J, Alexander ER, Berger R, Monda G, Holmes K. Aetiology of acute epididymitis. Lancet. 1977;309(8016):819–21.

9. 9. Fox S. The Social Life of Health Information. Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project;2011.
10. 10. Schlichthorst M, Sanci LA, Pirkis J, Spittal MJ, Hocking JS. Why do men go to the doctor? Socio-demographic and lifestyle factors associated with healthcare utilisation among a cohort of Australian men. BMC Public Health. 2016;16:1028.
11. 11. MacDonald C, Burton M, Carachi R, O’Toole S. Why adolescents delay with presentation to hospital with acute testicular pain: a qualitative study. J Pediatr Surg. 2021;56:614–9.
12. 12. Gul M, Diri MA. YouTube as a source of information about premature ejaculation treatment. J Sex Med. 2019;16(11):1734–40.
13. 13. Gül M, İnci S, Aktaş H. Assessment of the reliability, quality, and medical content of hypercholesterolemia videos on YouTube as a source of information. Anatol Clin. 2023;28(3):276–84.
14. 14. Singh AG, Singh S, Singh PP. YouTube for information on rheumatoid arthritis—a wakeup call? J Rheumatol. 2012;39(5):899–903.
15. 15. Morahan-Martin JM. How internet users find, evaluate, and use online health information: a cross-cultural review. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2004;7(5):497–510.
16. 16. Megaly M, Khalil C, Tadros B, Tawadros M. Evaluation of educational value of YouTube videos for patients with coeliac disease. Int J Celiac Dis. 2016;4(3):102–4.
17. 17. Ku S, Balasubramanian A, Yu J, Srivatsav A, Gondokusumo J, Tatem AJ, et al. A systematic evaluation of YouTube as an information source for male infertility. IJIR. 2021;33:611–5.
18. 18. Melchionna A, Collà Ruvolo C, Capece M, La Rocca R, Celentano G, Califano G, et al. Testicular pain and YouTube™: are uploaded videos a reliable source to get information? IJIR. 2023;35:140–6.
19. 19. Sood A, Sarangi S, Pandey A, Murugiah K. YouTube as a source of information on kidney stone disease. Urology. 2011;77(3):558–62.
20. 20. Bizpinar Munis O, Aynal Olcucuoglu LC. Assessing the quality of YouTube videos as a source of information on mild cognitive impairment. Ann Med Res. 2023;30(10):1289–94.