famous YouTube videos about prostate cancer often offer misleading or tendentious medical information that gives a likely risk to the well-being of patients, demonstrates the test platform of public networks.

Under the direction of researchers from the new York Institute of medicine's secondary school of medicine and its Perlmutter cancer center, a study of the 150 most viewed YouTube videos about the disease demonstrated that 77% actually had actual blunders or tendentious table of contents in the video or in the explanations section.

Announcement in the magazine European Urology online Nov. 27, the study further demonstrated, in fact, that 75 % of the video entirely outlined the outstanding qualities of all kinds of healing appearances, while only 53% quite captured the likely harms and side effects. Another 19 % advised other or charitable ways of healing, which are largely unproven, the creators of the study talk. They quote times of potentially malicious sample in which the video raised "to introduce herbs" into the prostate in order for this to treat cancer, a statement not backed by medical proof.

Scientists talk, in fact that the YouTube public for these videos was tremendous, with an average joint audience of 45,000, but up to 1.3 million. More than 600,000 videos of prostate cancer are placed on the public mesh platform.

"Our study demonstrates that actually what people really need to be afraid of the many YouTube videos about prostate cancer", - speaks the senior prospector and urologist Stacy Loeb, MD, MSc, who leads a group of professionals in the public media to the American urological Association (AUA). "They have expensive information, but people have to figure out the key in order to make sure that it is trustworthy, and beware of such as quickly become irrelevant videos, because the care Council every day develop together with science."

Apart from this, only 50% of the analyzed videos depict "joint decision-making", the current stereotype of care for screening and treatment of prostate cancer, talks Loeb, associate Professor of urology and well-being at the medical school of the new York Institute.

The latest South American core framework, revised last year, advises men between the ages of 55 and 69 to talk to their own health professionals about the risks and superiority of blood screening for prostate cancer. Loeb talks, in fact that almost all known videos precede this change, and even encourage more brutal healing than is currently honey important for the disease with low risk.

Loeb talks, in fact that the suppliers of honey proposals are obliged to Orient their own patients to reliable sources of information about prostate cancer. She's also calling on other healthcare professionals and providers to participate in public media platforms, such as YouTube, to create videos that offer evidence-based recommendations.

Reliable informants of online prostate cancer information, talks Loeb, are widely available and include the prostate cancer Fund, which has undoubtedly helped Fund the current study; the urology Fund, the AUA website for patients; and The state cancer UNIVERSITY, among others.

Loeb talks, in fact that the size of the YouTube video prepares impractical for med professionals to view them all every day as part of every "police work"effort. But, according to its texts, doctors and other visitors are obliged to use the reporting function YouTube to notify their own officials about the video, which contribute misleading information.

For the latest analysis, Loeb and its team, which included public grid specialists, evaluated the educational value of any video based on more than 10 features, covering accuracy, degree of disinformation, and paid bias. Past studies on video prostate cancer that she had, were smaller and did not use standardized methods to evaluate their content.

In addition to the prostate cancer Fund, funding for the ongoing study was provided by the family Foundation blank. Loeb also reports that he has received reasonable, conversational, consulting fees and / or remuneration from manufacturers and suppliers of proposals related to the treatment of prostate cancer, covering Sanofi and Lilly. Her husband still contains economic zaintresovannost in Gilead. All cases are managed in accordance with the NYU Langone policy. Her research co-researchers report relationships with Mundipharma Australia, Janssen Australia, Ipsen Australia, MSD Australia, East Melbourne primary care network, Teva, and Ismar health.