Is social media reliable as a source of information on Peyronie’s disease treatment?


International Journal of Impotence Research, vol.34, no.3, pp.295-301, 2022 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 34 Issue: 3
  • Publication Date: 2022
  • Doi Number: 10.1038/s41443-021-00454-3
  • Journal Name: International Journal of Impotence Research
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Academic Search Premier, Abstracts in Social Gerontology, EMBASE, Gender Studies Database, MEDLINE
  • Page Numbers: pp.295-301
  • Kayseri University Affiliated: No


© 2021, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.Although YouTube video is one of the most widely used and easily accessible information sharing sources, its widespread use can carry the risk of spreading misleading and unreliable information. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy, reliability, quality, and content of the most viewed YouTube videos related to Peyronie’s disease treatment. The keywords of “penile curvature”, “penile deformity”, “bent penis” “curved penis”, and “Peyronie’s disease” were searched on YouTube. Among 700 YouTube videos, 267 videos were included in the study. They were categorized by two independent urologists with board certification as accurate information (n = 138, 51.7%) or inaccurate information (n = 129, 48.3%). Accurate videos contained information about the treatment of Peyronie’s disease with proven scientific accuracy according to the current guidelines, whereas inaccurate videos contained scientifically unproven or incorrect information and recommendations not in the guidelines. A 5-point modified DISCERN scale and Global Quality Score were used for reliability and quality assessment. Although the accurate information group had a significantly higher DISCERN Score (3, IQR = 3–4 vs. 1, IQR = 1–2, p <.001) and Global Quality Score (5, IQR = 4–5 vs. 2, IQR = 1–3 p < 0.001); the number of views per day (10.37, IQR = 3.01–28.12 vs. 6.65, IQR = 1.55–27.87) and likes (36, IQR = 6–145 vs. 19.5, IQR = 4–121.7) were higher but not significant in the inaccurate information group. The majority of the videos in the inaccurate information group were uploaded by medical advertisement/for profit companies (51.2%) and individual users/patients (38.8%), whereas universities/professional organizations/nonprofit physician/physician groups constituted the majority in the accurate information group (60.9%). According to our findings, videos containing inaccurate information are more popular. People should be made aware that they should not immediately believe the videos containing medical advertisements without consulting nonprofit physicians.