Dear Editor,

I read with great interest the recent article titled “The efficacy and reliability of English YouTube videos as a source of information for pregnant rheumatoid arthritis patients” [1]. The authors aimed to evaluate the quality and reliability of YouTube video content for pregnant rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. The study concluded that the majority of videos for pregnant RA patients were educational and useful. I appreciate the authors’ contribution on this topic. But also I have some comments regarding the study.

In this study, the quality of the videos was evaluated by the modified DISCERN tool and the Global Quality Score (GQS). However, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Benchmark Criteria were also used for quality analysis of the videos in recent studies [2, 3]. Additionally, in the study conducted by Abramson et al. [4], the quality, understandability and actionability of the information in the videos were analyzed using another validated instrument, the Patient Education Materials and Assessment Tool (PEMAT). Therefore, the authors should have also considered other validated instruments to evaluate the quality of YouTube videos.

The authors recorded the video features and used the like ratio, view ratio and Video Power Index to determine the popularity of the videos. Jashi et al. [2] also calculated the daily viewership rate to avoid bias in their study that may result from the date of upload to YouTube. In this regard, I wondered if the authors analyzed the daily viewership rate in the current study.

Once again, I appreciate the work by the authors and hope that the readers may benefit from it.