This study revealed that although YouTube is widely used as an information source on pediatric appendicitis, the overall educational quality and reliability of its content remain insufficient. Notably, only two out of the 60 analyzed videos comprehensively addressed all key aspects of the condition (symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, postoperative care, and complications), and the quality scores based on the mDISCERN, GQS, and JAMA scales were generally low to moderate. The lack of alignment between the most-viewed videos and high-quality content highlights a disconnect between popularity and reliability. Videos uploaded by hospitals and physicians received significantly higher quality scores across all evaluation tools, whereas those uploaded by individuals frequently had the lowest scores. Furthermore, although animated videos significantly increased viewer engagement, they did not improve information quality. These findings underscore a critical deficiency of accurate, comprehensive, and reliable content on pediatric appendicitis within this widely accessed platform.
When evaluating the quality of appendicitis-related YouTube videos in the present study, the overall findings indicated a low to moderate level of quality, with a median mDISCERN score of 3 (2–3), a GQS median of 3 (2–4), and a JAMA median of 3 (1–3). These results are comparable to those of Toksoz and Duran [19], who reported median mDISCERN, GQS, and JAMA scores of 3 (1–5), 3 (1–5), and 3 (1–4), respectively, for videos on vesicoureteral reflux. However, the findings of Keten and Erkan [20] for undescended testes videos showed slightly lower mean scores (mDISCERN: 2.25 ± 1.2, GQS: 2.82 ± 1.1, JAMA: 1.4 ± 0.99), indicating relatively poorer quality. In contrast, Anadolulu et al. [21] reported a higher average JAMA score of 3.20 ± 1.07 (0–4) for bowel management videos, suggesting greater reliability in that specific content. Similarly, Zaliznyak et al. [22] found mDISCERN and GQS scores of 2.9 ± 0.7 and 2.9 ± 1.1, respectively, for newborn male circumcision videos, which closely align with the present study’s values. Collectively, these comparisons indicate that while the quality of medical video content varies across topics, the overall reliability and educational value remain moderate at best.
Overall, scale scores in this study were consistent with the literature. Only two videos received full marks on the mDISCERN, GQS, and JAMA scales, highlighting the scarcity of high-quality, reliable content. Conversely, six videos scored only one point across all scales, reflecting serious deficiencies in accuracy and completeness. Roberts et al. [23] reported similar results: nearly half of appendicitis and cholecystitis videos lacked educational value, and more than one-third contained misinformation. These findings underscore the importance of producing more accurate and comprehensive content to support public health literacy.
The analysis of view counts and the Video Power Index (VPI) revealed notable disparities in public interest across pediatric topics. In our study, appendicitis-related videos had a median view count of 19,849 (8285–56,297) and a median VPI of 11.5 (4.3–34.4), both significantly higher than those observed for other pediatric conditions. For instance, videos on undescended testis and vesicoureteral reflux had markedly lower median view counts (589 and 567, respectively) and negligible VPI values (median VPI: 0 for reflux), indicating limited public engagement [19, 20]. In contrast, newborn male circumcision videos showed a substantially higher median view count (39,247) and VPI (182.6 ± 328.3), even surpassing the popularity of appendicitis-related content [22]. These disparities may reflect differences in parental concern, cultural significance, and the perceived urgency or frequency of these conditions. Circumcision, for example, is a widely practiced and culturally significant procedure in many societies, potentially contributing to its higher visibility. Appendicitis, although less culturally driven, is an acute and common pediatric surgical emergency, which may explain its relatively elevated public interest. Conversely, conditions such as undescended testis or vesicoureteral reflux, often managed through long-term follow-up rather than urgent intervention, may attract less attention from general audiences.
Surgical videos were generally of moderate quality. In a study by Park et al. [24], 25% of laparoscopic appendectomy videos were rated as high quality, 64.3% as moderate, and 10.7% as low. In our study, based on GQS, 28.6% of surgical videos were low quality, 50% moderate, and 21.4% high, aligning with previous findings. Notably, most surgical videos focused on acute appendicitis; videos of perforated appendicitis were nearly absent, indicating a gap in surgical training content. That 76.7% of videos were classified as informational suggests YouTube serves as a valuable resource. However, only 3.3% of videos addressed the entire diagnostic and treatment process, indicating that most content is limited. While videos often focus on symptoms, critical topics such as diagnostic procedures, treatment options, postoperative care, and potential complications were largely overlooked. Thus, there is a need for more comprehensive, high-quality videos covering the full course of pediatric appendicitis. Surgical videos scored higher on the JAMA scale than informational videos, indicating better compliance with standard information criteria. However, the absence of significant differences in mDISCERN and GQS scores suggests comparable overall quality. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in view count, likes, or VPI scores, showing that content type alone does not determine viewer interest.
Animated videos had significantly higher views, likes, and VPI scores than non-animated ones, suggesting a positive impact on popularity. However, there were no significant differences in quality scores (mDISCERN, GQS, JAMA), implying that animation enhances engagement but not content quality. Improving the quality of animated videos may help deliver reliable information more effectively. Significant differences were observed in video quality by publisher type. Videos from hospitals and doctors scored significantly higher on all three quality scales than those from individuals or private channels. Notably, the two videos receiving full scores were published by a doctor and a hospital. However, popularity metrics did not differ significantly across publisher types. Among the six lowest-scoring videos, five were uploaded by individual users. This supports Roberts et al. [23], who found that healthcare professionals produce more reliable content. These results indicate that professionalism is linked to video quality, but not necessarily to popularity.
The most viewed video received full marks on the GQS but only moderate scores on mDISCERN and JAMA, suggesting high watchability but moderate reliability. In contrast, the second, third, and fifth most popular videos had low scores across all scales, indicating that popularity does not reflect quality. This observation is further supported by correlation analyses, which revealed no significant relationships between mDISCERN, GQS, or JAMA scores and popularity metrics such as view count, likes, or VPI. Even low-quality videos attracting large audiences highlights the risk of misinformation driven by misleading popularity indicators. A weak positive correlation between video duration and both likes and VPI was observed, suggesting that shorter videos may limit viewer engagement. Moreover, older videos tended to receive fewer likes and had lower VPI scores, indicating a decline in viewer interest over time. Collectively, these findings emphasize that popularity does not guarantee content quality and underscore the importance of promoting accurate, current, and comprehensive information from reliable sources. These results are consistent with those of Uğurlu and Ugurlu [25], who also reported that professionalism is associated with content quality but not with popularity.
Appendicitis is a common pediatric condition requiring urgent care [26]. YouTube is frequently used by parents and healthcare providers due to its accessibility and reach. However, no prior study has comprehensively evaluated the quality of YouTube videos on pediatric appendicitis. Our study addresses this gap, offering valuable insights for both caregivers and professionals. One limitation is the focus on YouTube alone, excluding other popular platforms like TikTok or Instagram. While YouTube is still a major hub for long-form medical content, future studies should expand to multiple platforms to reflect the broader digital landscape. Nonetheless, our findings highlight YouTube’s central role and the importance of quality control in widely accessed content.
Another limitation is the diverse needs of YouTube audiences, including parents, patients, and professionals. This study assessed content from a general perspective, without tailoring to specific groups. For instance, while professionals may seek detailed technical information, parents often prioritize clarity and reassurance. Future research should explore how different audiences engage with content and whether it meets their specific needs.
Additionally, since the analysis was limited to the top 60 most-viewed videos, the findings may not fully represent the overall quality landscape of all YouTube content. However, these videos are the most frequently watched and therefore likely to have the greatest influence on public understanding and health information access. Moreover, the search strategy relied on commonly used American English terminology. Although unlikely to significantly alter the results, the omission of British English terms such as ‘appendicectomy’ may have introduced a minor linguistic or regional bias in video selection, as YouTube’s search algorithm prioritizes relevance and user engagement over exact keyword matching.
Another limitation is the lack of direct user (patients, carers and non-surgical users) feedback. Prior studies emphasize how non-medical users often prefer visually simple content, which may sometimes be misleading [9]. Swire-Thompson and Lazer [10] highlighted the risks of health misinformation on social media, and Roberts et al. [23] noted that surgical videos can confuse non-professional viewers. These findings underline the need to present accurate content in ways that align with audience comprehension. Future studies should integrate user feedback through methods such as surveys, interviews, or usability tests to better understand how users perceive and interpret YouTube content.
Content quality was assessed using standardized tools such as GQS, mDISCERN, and JAMA, which are widely used in medical literature. These tools evaluate authorship, citations, and reliability, enabling indirect comparison with institutional sources [15, 16, 17]. Still, future studies could benefit from directly comparing YouTube videos with standardized educational materials prepared by medical associations or academic institutions to better identify content gaps and usability challenges.
Finally, two independent pediatric surgery experts evaluated the videos using objective tools. However, the perceptions of patients, parents, and general audiences—who are the primary users—were not assessed. Including their feedback in future studies would help determine whether video content aligns with their informational needs.