Reference
1. Bushman W. Etiology, epidemiology, and natural history of benign
prostatic hyperplasia. Urol Clin North Am. 2009 Nov;36(4):403–15, v.
2. Elmansy HM, Kotb A, Elhilali MM. Holmium laser enucleation of the
prostate: long-term durability of clinical outcomes and complication
rates during 10 years of followup. J Urol. 2011 Nov;186(5):1972–6.
3. Michalak J, Tzou D, Funk J. HoLEP: the gold standard for the surgical
management of BPH in the 21(st) Century. Am J Clin Exp Urol.
2015;3(1):36–42.
4. YouTube. YouTube in numbers [Webpage] [Internet].
youtube.com. 2020. p. 1–1. Available from:
https://www.youtube.com/intl/en-GB/about/press/
5. The top 500 sites on the web. Alexa Internet, Inc; [Internet].
Accessed April 30, 2020. 2020. Available from:
https://www.alexa.com/topsites
6. Loeb S, Taylor J, Borin JF, Mihalcea R, Perez-Rosas V, Byrne N, et
al. Fake News: Spread of Misinformation about Urological Conditions on
Social Media. Eur Urol Focus. 2020 May;6(3):437–9.
7. Loeb S, Sengupta S, Butaney M, Macaluso JNJ, Czarniecki SW, Robbins
R, et al. Dissemination of Misinformative and Biased Information about
Prostate Cancer on YouTube. Vol. 75, European urology. Switzerland;
2019. p. 564–7.
8. Cornish JK, Leist JC. What constitutes commercial bias compared with
the personal opinion of experts? J Contin Educ Health Prof.
2006;26(2):161–7.
9. European Association of Urology. Non–Oncology Guidelines.Managment
of Non–neurogenic Male LUTS. In 2020. Available from:
https://uroweb.org/guideline/treatment–of–non–neurogenic–male–luts
10. Likert R. A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. Arch
Psychol. 1932;140:1–55.
11. The patient education materials assessment tool (PEMAT) and user’s
guide. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
[Internet]. 2020. Available from:
https://www.ahrq.gov/health-literacy/patient-education/pemat-av.html
12. DISCERN Online. Quality criteria for consumer health information;
[Internet]. 2020. Available from: www.discern.org.uk/index.php
13. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument
for judging the quality of written consumer health information on
treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999 Feb;53(2):105–11.
14. Bernard A, Langille M, Hughes S, Rose C, Leddin D, Veldhuyzen van
Zanten S. A systematic review of patient inflammatory bowel disease
information resources on the World Wide Web. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007
Sep;102(9):2070–7.
15. Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling, and
assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: Caveant
lector et viewor–Let the reader and viewer beware. Vol. 277, JAMA.
United States; 1997. p. 1244–5.
16. Petrucci AM, Chand M, Wexner SD. Social Media: Changing the Paradigm
for Surgical Education. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2017 Sep;30(4):244–51.
17. Sajadi KP, Goldman HB. Social networks lack useful content for
incontinence. Urology. 2011 Oct;78(4):764–7.
18. Adhikari J, Sharma P, Arjyal L, Uprety D. YouTube as a Source of
Information on Cervical Cancer. N Am J Med Sci. 2016 Apr;8(4):183–6.
19. Huang MM, Winoker JS, Allaf ME, Matlaga BR, Koo K. Evidence-based
quality and accuracy of YouTube videos about nephrolithiasis. BJU Int.
2020 Aug;
20. Vosoughi S, Roy D, Aral S. The spread of true and false news online.
Science. 2018 Mar;359(6380):1146–51.
21. Culha Y, Culha MG, Acaroglu R. Evaluation of YouTube Videos
Regarding Clean Intermittent Catheterization Application. Int Neurourol
J. 2020 Sep;24(3):286–92.
22. Singh AG, Singh S, Singh PP. YouTube for information on rheumatoid
arthritis–a wakeup call? J Rheumatol. 2012 May;39(5):899–903.
23. Esen E, Aslan M, Sonbahar BÇ, Kerimoğlu RS. YouTube English videos
as a source of information on breast self-examination. Breast Cancer Res
Treat. 2019 Feb;173(3):629–35.
24. Drozd B, Couvillon E, Suarez A. Medical YouTube Videos and Methods
of Evaluation: Literature Review. JMIR Med Educ. 2018 Feb;4(1):e3.
25. Betschart P, Pratsinis M, Müllhaupt G, Rechner R, Herrmann TR,
Gratzke C, et al. Information on surgical treatment of benign prostatic
hyperplasia on YouTube is highly biased and misleading. BJU Int. 2020
Apr;125(4):595–601.
26. Serinken M, Eken C, Erdemir F, Eliçabuk H, Başer A. The reliability
of national videos related to the kidney stones on YouTube. Turkish J
Urol. 2016 Mar;42(1):7–11.
27. Sood A, Sarangi S, Pandey A, Murugiah K. YouTube as a source of
information on kidney stone disease. Urology. 2011 Mar;77(3):558–62.
28. Gul M, Diri MA. YouTube as a Source of Information About Premature
Ejaculation Treatment. J Sex Med. 2019 Nov;16(11):1734–40.
29. Kovalski LNS, Cardoso FB, D’Avila OP, Corrêa APB, Martins MAT,
Martins MD, et al. Is the YouTubeTM an useful source
of information on oral leukoplakia? Oral Dis. 2019 Nov;25(8):1897–905.
30. Fode M, Nolsøe AB, Jacobsen FM, Russo GI, Østergren PB, Jensen CFS,
et al. Quality of Information in YouTube Videos on Erectile Dysfunction.
Sex Med. 2020 Sep;8(3):408–13.
31. European Association of Urology. Patient information. In. Available
from: http://patients.uroweb.org/i–am–a–urology–patient/
Table 1. Characteristics of the videos