"Don't Trust Every Doctor on Screen"... The Betrayal of Medical YouTube

Analysis of 309 Cancer and Diabetes-Related Videos
Majority Rated D for Lack of Scientific Evidence

A study has found that health-related videos on YouTube do not provide reliable medical information. Even videos featuring doctors explaining medical topics were rarely backed by strong scientific evidence.

According to Yonhap News on February 3, a research team led by Professor Eun-Kyo Kang at the National Cancer Center reviewed 309 YouTube videos related to cancer and diabetes. The results of their analysis were recently published in the international journal 'JAMA Network Open.'

Not related to any specific expression in the article. Pixabay

The research team examined 309 YouTube videos on cancer and diabetes uploaded between June 20 and 21 last year. The content of each video was rated from grade A to D, depending on the strength of the medical evidence supporting its claims, in order to assess reliability.

Three-quarters of the sampled videos were produced by doctors. The average number of views per video was 164,000. Most of the videos were found by searching for Korean terms such as "cancer" and "diabetes" on YouTube.

The analysis showed that only 19.7% of the videos received an A grade, indicating a high level of evidence—just about one in five. Grade B accounted for 14.6%, and grade C for 3.2%. In contrast, grade D, which indicates very low or no evidence, made up 62.5%, representing the majority.

The study also found that videos with weak evidence had 35% more views compared to those presenting strong scientific evidence.

Regarding these findings, Professor Kang, who led the study, pointed out, "This research shows that in medical content videos, the authority of doctors is often used to justify claims lacking empirical evidence, revealing a significant gap between credibility and evidence."

She added, "There is a need for guidelines on producing evidence-based content, strengthened science communication training for medical professionals, engagement metrics, and algorithm reforms that prioritize scientific rigor."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.