Is YouTube a sufficient source of information on Sarcoidosis?

<bold>Background:</bold> The internet is a common source of health information for patients and caregivers. To date, content and information quality of YouTube videos on sarcoidosis has not been studied. <bold>Methods:</bold> Of the first 200 results under the search term "sarcoidosis," all English-language videos with content directed at patients were included. Two independent investigators assessed the content of the videos based on 25 predefined key features (content score with 0-25 points), as well as reliability and quality (HONCode score with 0-8, DISCERN score with 1-5 points). Misinformation contained in the videos was described qualitatively. <bold>Results:</bold> The majority of the 85 included videos were from an academic or governmental source (n= 63, 74 %), and median time since upload was 33 months (IQR 10-55). Median video duration was 8 minutes (IQR 3-13) and had a median of 2,044 views (IQR 504-13,203). Quality assessment suggested partially sufficient information: mean HONCode score was 4.4 (SD 0.9) with 91% of videos having a medium quality HONCode evaluation. Mean DISCERN score was 2.3 (SD 0.5). Video content was poor with a mean of 10.5 points (SD 0.6). Absent key features included information on the course of disease (6%), presence of substantial geographical variation (7%), and importance of screening for extrapulmonary manifestations (11%). HONCode scores were higher in videos from academic or governmental sources (p=0.003), particularly regarding “transparency of sponsorship” (p< 0.001). DISCERN and content scores did not differ by video category. <bold>Conclusions:</bold> Most YouTube videos present incomplete information of poor quality, particularly around missing references. Trustworthy and up to date information is needed.