Background: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a medical intervention employed to provide life-sustaining support for patients. YouTube is a dynamic and widely utilized platform for distributing health-related information. The aim of this study was to evaluate ECMO-related videos on YouTube and assess the frequency of misleading information in the accumulation of ECMO videos. Methods: On September 17, 2024, an in-depth examination on YouTube was conducted using search phrases “Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation” and “ECMO treatment.”The study included 55 selected videos. Video parameters and sources were analyzed.Content assessments were conducted utilizing the Global Quality Scale (GQS), the modified DISCERN instrument, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Benchmark Criteria, and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audio/Visual Materials (PEMAT-A/V).The authors conducted comparisons among quality groups. Results: Among the 55 videos analyzed, 30.9% (n = 17) were categorized as low quality, 21.8% (n = 12) as intermediate quality, and 47.3% (n = 26) as high quality. Physicians (75%) provided the most high-quality videos. News outlets (83.3%) provided the most low-quality videos. No statistically significant difference was observed between quality groups in daily views, likes, and comments (P > 0.05). Significant correlations were identified between video duration and GQS (r = 0.585), modified DISCERN questionnaire (r = 0.557), JAMA Benchmark Criteria (r = 0.511), PEMAT-A/V Understandability (r = 0.530), and PEMAT-A/V Actionability scores (r = 0.433) (P < 0.001 for all correlation analyses). Conclusion There is a wide variety in the quality of YouTube ECMO videos. Although YouTube content created by physicians is more likely to provide accurate and beneficial information, substandard videos present a significant public health threat by disseminating misinformation.The critical role of quality control methods on social media platforms in ensuring the accurate and high-quality transmission of health-related information is readily evident.

Background: This survey examined healthcare professionals' knowledge, views, and perceptions of the responsibilities and functions of Research Ethics Committees (RECs).The study aimed to analyze ethical principles and operational issues faced by RECs and guide researchers, journal editors, and publishers on publication ethics notes. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted using the SurveyMonkey.com platform to assess healthcare professionals' knowledge, views, and practices concerning RECs' responsibilities, functions, and roles. The survey focused on REC definitions, functions, research types that require REC approval, and research protocols’ evaluation time frames.It also reflected on ethics considerations and REC adaptations during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, REC member qualifications, evaluation periods, and additional challenges confronting RECs. Convenience sampling was adopted, and the survey was distributed via social media platforms. Results: The survey was based on an analysis of questionnaires filled by 182 responders (104 females [57.1%] and 76 males [41.8%]), with a median age of 36. The survey respondents were from 28 different countries. The top three countries with most responders were Kazakhstan (n = 83), Türkiye (n = 33) and Poland (n = 10). Most participants (n = 128, 70.3%) were familiar with the definition of RECs and recognized the importance of REC approval for clinical trials and interventional research. Research study protocols should be submitted for REC evaluation and approval during the planning phase, according to 145 responders (79.7%). Participants emphasized the significance of formal ethics training for REC members.The involvement in research approved by RECs was also viewed as an important precondition for membering RECs. Participants suggested online submissions (n = 127, 69.8%), virtual meetings (n = 99, 54.4%), and fast evaluation schedules for low-risk research protocols (n = 77, 42.3%) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion Healthcare professionals comprehend the basics of REC duties and responsibilities. However, improvements in the consistency and efficiency of ethics evaluations are still warranted. The COVID-19 pandemic stressed the importance of adaptive REC procedures; researchers, editors, and publishers learned a vitally important lesson. More efforts are warranted to increase REC member training, simplify administrative procedures, and define standard operating procedures in times of crisis. Continuous progress in these areas will allow RECs to maintain high ethical standards while supporting productive research. Editors and publishers will greatly benefit from related advances in research ethics considerations.

Background: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a medical intervention employed to provide life-sustaining support for patients. YouTube is a dynamic and widely utilized platform for distributing health-related information. The aim of this study was to evaluate ECMO-related videos on YouTube and assess the frequency of misleading information in the accumulation of ECMO videos. Methods: On September 17, 2024, an in-depth examination on YouTube was conducted using search phrases “Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation” and “ECMO treatment.”The study included 55 selected videos. Video parameters and sources were analyzed.Content assessments were conducted utilizing the Global Quality Scale (GQS), the modified DISCERN instrument, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Benchmark Criteria, and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audio/Visual Materials (PEMAT-A/V).The authors conducted comparisons among quality groups. Results: Among the 55 videos analyzed, 30.9% (n = 17) were categorized as low quality, 21.8% (n = 12) as intermediate quality, and 47.3% (n = 26) as high quality. Physicians (75%) provided the most high-quality videos. News outlets (83.3%) provided the most low-quality videos. No statistically significant difference was observed between quality groups in daily views, likes, and comments (P > 0.05). Significant correlations were identified between video duration and GQS (r = 0.585), modified DISCERN questionnaire (r = 0.557), JAMA Benchmark Criteria (r = 0.511), PEMAT-A/V Understandability (r = 0.530), and PEMAT-A/V Actionability scores (r = 0.433) (P < 0.001 for all correlation analyses). Conclusion There is a wide variety in the quality of YouTube ECMO videos. Although YouTube content created by physicians is more likely to provide accurate and beneficial information, substandard videos present a significant public health threat by disseminating misinformation.The critical role of quality control methods on social media platforms in ensuring the accurate and high-quality transmission of health-related information is readily evident.

Background: This survey examined healthcare professionals' knowledge, views, and perceptions of the responsibilities and functions of Research Ethics Committees (RECs).The study aimed to analyze ethical principles and operational issues faced by RECs and guide researchers, journal editors, and publishers on publication ethics notes. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted using the SurveyMonkey.com platform to assess healthcare professionals' knowledge, views, and practices concerning RECs' responsibilities, functions, and roles. The survey focused on REC definitions, functions, research types that require REC approval, and research protocols’ evaluation time frames.It also reflected on ethics considerations and REC adaptations during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, REC member qualifications, evaluation periods, and additional challenges confronting RECs. Convenience sampling was adopted, and the survey was distributed via social media platforms. Results: The survey was based on an analysis of questionnaires filled by 182 responders (104 females [57.1%] and 76 males [41.8%]), with a median age of 36. The survey respondents were from 28 different countries. The top three countries with most responders were Kazakhstan (n = 83), Türkiye (n = 33) and Poland (n = 10). Most participants (n = 128, 70.3%) were familiar with the definition of RECs and recognized the importance of REC approval for clinical trials and interventional research. Research study protocols should be submitted for REC evaluation and approval during the planning phase, according to 145 responders (79.7%). Participants emphasized the significance of formal ethics training for REC members.The involvement in research approved by RECs was also viewed as an important precondition for membering RECs. Participants suggested online submissions (n = 127, 69.8%), virtual meetings (n = 99, 54.4%), and fast evaluation schedules for low-risk research protocols (n = 77, 42.3%) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion Healthcare professionals comprehend the basics of REC duties and responsibilities. However, improvements in the consistency and efficiency of ethics evaluations are still warranted. The COVID-19 pandemic stressed the importance of adaptive REC procedures; researchers, editors, and publishers learned a vitally important lesson. More efforts are warranted to increase REC member training, simplify administrative procedures, and define standard operating procedures in times of crisis. Continuous progress in these areas will allow RECs to maintain high ethical standards while supporting productive research. Editors and publishers will greatly benefit from related advances in research ethics considerations.

Background: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a medical intervention employed to provide life-sustaining support for patients. YouTube is a dynamic and widely utilized platform for distributing health-related information. The aim of this study was to evaluate ECMO-related videos on YouTube and assess the frequency of misleading information in the accumulation of ECMO videos. Methods: On September 17, 2024, an in-depth examination on YouTube was conducted using search phrases “Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation” and “ECMO treatment.”The study included 55 selected videos. Video parameters and sources were analyzed.Content assessments were conducted utilizing the Global Quality Scale (GQS), the modified DISCERN instrument, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Benchmark Criteria, and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audio/Visual Materials (PEMAT-A/V).The authors conducted comparisons among quality groups. Results: Among the 55 videos analyzed, 30.9% (n = 17) were categorized as low quality, 21.8% (n = 12) as intermediate quality, and 47.3% (n = 26) as high quality. Physicians (75%) provided the most high-quality videos. News outlets (83.3%) provided the most low-quality videos. No statistically significant difference was observed between quality groups in daily views, likes, and comments (P > 0.05). Significant correlations were identified between video duration and GQS (r = 0.585), modified DISCERN questionnaire (r = 0.557), JAMA Benchmark Criteria (r = 0.511), PEMAT-A/V Understandability (r = 0.530), and PEMAT-A/V Actionability scores (r = 0.433) (P < 0.001 for all correlation analyses). Conclusion There is a wide variety in the quality of YouTube ECMO videos. Although YouTube content created by physicians is more likely to provide accurate and beneficial information, substandard videos present a significant public health threat by disseminating misinformation.The critical role of quality control methods on social media platforms in ensuring the accurate and high-quality transmission of health-related information is readily evident.

Background: This survey examined healthcare professionals' knowledge, views, and perceptions of the responsibilities and functions of Research Ethics Committees (RECs).The study aimed to analyze ethical principles and operational issues faced by RECs and guide researchers, journal editors, and publishers on publication ethics notes. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted using the SurveyMonkey.com platform to assess healthcare professionals' knowledge, views, and practices concerning RECs' responsibilities, functions, and roles. The survey focused on REC definitions, functions, research types that require REC approval, and research protocols’ evaluation time frames.It also reflected on ethics considerations and REC adaptations during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, REC member qualifications, evaluation periods, and additional challenges confronting RECs. Convenience sampling was adopted, and the survey was distributed via social media platforms. Results: The survey was based on an analysis of questionnaires filled by 182 responders (104 females [57.1%] and 76 males [41.8%]), with a median age of 36. The survey respondents were from 28 different countries. The top three countries with most responders were Kazakhstan (n = 83), Türkiye (n = 33) and Poland (n = 10). Most participants (n = 128, 70.3%) were familiar with the definition of RECs and recognized the importance of REC approval for clinical trials and interventional research. Research study protocols should be submitted for REC evaluation and approval during the planning phase, according to 145 responders (79.7%). Participants emphasized the significance of formal ethics training for REC members.The involvement in research approved by RECs was also viewed as an important precondition for membering RECs. Participants suggested online submissions (n = 127, 69.8%), virtual meetings (n = 99, 54.4%), and fast evaluation schedules for low-risk research protocols (n = 77, 42.3%) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion Healthcare professionals comprehend the basics of REC duties and responsibilities. However, improvements in the consistency and efficiency of ethics evaluations are still warranted. The COVID-19 pandemic stressed the importance of adaptive REC procedures; researchers, editors, and publishers learned a vitally important lesson. More efforts are warranted to increase REC member training, simplify administrative procedures, and define standard operating procedures in times of crisis. Continuous progress in these areas will allow RECs to maintain high ethical standards while supporting productive research. Editors and publishers will greatly benefit from related advances in research ethics considerations.

Background: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a medical intervention employed to provide life-sustaining support for patients. YouTube is a dynamic and widely utilized platform for distributing health-related information. The aim of this study was to evaluate ECMO-related videos on YouTube and assess the frequency of misleading information in the accumulation of ECMO videos. Methods: On September 17, 2024, an in-depth examination on YouTube was conducted using search phrases “Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation” and “ECMO treatment.”The study included 55 selected videos. Video parameters and sources were analyzed.Content assessments were conducted utilizing the Global Quality Scale (GQS), the modified DISCERN instrument, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Benchmark Criteria, and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audio/Visual Materials (PEMAT-A/V).The authors conducted comparisons among quality groups. Results: Among the 55 videos analyzed, 30.9% (n = 17) were categorized as low quality, 21.8% (n = 12) as intermediate quality, and 47.3% (n = 26) as high quality. Physicians (75%) provided the most high-quality videos. News outlets (83.3%) provided the most low-quality videos. No statistically significant difference was observed between quality groups in daily views, likes, and comments (P > 0.05). Significant correlations were identified between video duration and GQS (r = 0.585), modified DISCERN questionnaire (r = 0.557), JAMA Benchmark Criteria (r = 0.511), PEMAT-A/V Understandability (r = 0.530), and PEMAT-A/V Actionability scores (r = 0.433) (P < 0.001 for all correlation analyses). Conclusion There is a wide variety in the quality of YouTube ECMO videos. Although YouTube content created by physicians is more likely to provide accurate and beneficial information, substandard videos present a significant public health threat by disseminating misinformation.The critical role of quality control methods on social media platforms in ensuring the accurate and high-quality transmission of health-related information is readily evident.

Background: This survey examined healthcare professionals' knowledge, views, and perceptions of the responsibilities and functions of Research Ethics Committees (RECs).The study aimed to analyze ethical principles and operational issues faced by RECs and guide researchers, journal editors, and publishers on publication ethics notes. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted using the SurveyMonkey.com platform to assess healthcare professionals' knowledge, views, and practices concerning RECs' responsibilities, functions, and roles. The survey focused on REC definitions, functions, research types that require REC approval, and research protocols’ evaluation time frames.It also reflected on ethics considerations and REC adaptations during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, REC member qualifications, evaluation periods, and additional challenges confronting RECs. Convenience sampling was adopted, and the survey was distributed via social media platforms. Results: The survey was based on an analysis of questionnaires filled by 182 responders (104 females [57.1%] and 76 males [41.8%]), with a median age of 36. The survey respondents were from 28 different countries. The top three countries with most responders were Kazakhstan (n = 83), Türkiye (n = 33) and Poland (n = 10). Most participants (n = 128, 70.3%) were familiar with the definition of RECs and recognized the importance of REC approval for clinical trials and interventional research. Research study protocols should be submitted for REC evaluation and approval during the planning phase, according to 145 responders (79.7%). Participants emphasized the significance of formal ethics training for REC members.The involvement in research approved by RECs was also viewed as an important precondition for membering RECs. Participants suggested online submissions (n = 127, 69.8%), virtual meetings (n = 99, 54.4%), and fast evaluation schedules for low-risk research protocols (n = 77, 42.3%) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion Healthcare professionals comprehend the basics of REC duties and responsibilities. However, improvements in the consistency and efficiency of ethics evaluations are still warranted. The COVID-19 pandemic stressed the importance of adaptive REC procedures; researchers, editors, and publishers learned a vitally important lesson. More efforts are warranted to increase REC member training, simplify administrative procedures, and define standard operating procedures in times of crisis. Continuous progress in these areas will allow RECs to maintain high ethical standards while supporting productive research. Editors and publishers will greatly benefit from related advances in research ethics considerations.

Background: Scientific medical research has progressed tremendously during the last 50 years, but concerns about research integrity, publishing ethics, and retraction trends have grown. Retractions are essential for revising the scientific record and maintaining credibility, yet an extensive long-term assessment of retracted medical publications is limited. Methods: We performed a descriptive analysis of 50 years of retracted medical publications from the Retraction Watch Database. Data were refined to encompass solely medicine-related retractions, omitting corrections, expressions of concern, and reinstatements. We classified retraction reasons into 68 categories, emphasizing the top 10 most frequently encountered reasons. Temporal trends were evaluated employing semi-logarithmic linear regression models. The geographical distribution and journal-specific retractions were also examined. Results: An analysis was conducted on 16,041 retracted medical documents from 1975 to 2024. The leading reasons for retraction included data concerns (31.47%), fraud (11.37%), peer review issues (11.21%), referencing issues (7.54%), and ethical violations (7.09%).The highest number of retractions was noted in Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine (5.91%), Journal of Healthcare Engineering (5.85%), and Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine (4.36%). Approximately 45.28% of retracted papers included at least one author from China, followed by the United States and India. The medical subfields most impacted were oncology (19.87%), cardiovascular medicine (15.62%), and pharmacology (14.49%). Temporal analysis indicated a steady rise in retractions, with data concerns and fraud doubling typically every 5.5 and 5.2 years. Conclusion The rising amount of retractions underscores heightened scrutiny and enhanced detection techniques while highlighting ongoing research integrity issues. Data integrity, fraudulent activities, and compromised peer review are significant issues. Fortifying editorial policies, augmenting transparency, and bolstering research ethics education are essential for reducing misconduct and maintaining the integrity of medical papers.

Background: Public health ethics (PHE) is a dynamic area within bioethics that addresses the complex moral implications of public health measures in the face of growing health threats.YouTube is a powerful and widely used platform for disseminating health-related information.The primary objective of this study is to assess videos related to PHE on YouTube. The aim is to gauge the extent of misinformation in collecting PHE videos on the platform. Methods: On October 25, 2023, a thorough investigation on YouTube was undertaken, employing pre-determined search phrases involving ‘public health,’ ‘healthcare,’ ‘health services administration,’ and ‘health policy and ethics.’ The research encompassed a total of 137 videos that were selected according to strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. The videos were evaluated using the Global Quality Scale to measure quality and the modified DISCERN tool to evaluate reliability. The researchers identified video sources and compared several video attributes across different quality groups. Results: A total of 137 videos were analyzed, and 65 (47.45%) were classified as high quality, 52 (37.23%) as moderate quality, and 21 (15.32%) as low quality. In high-quality videos, academic, government, physician, and university-hospital sources predominated, whereas Internet users and news sources were connected with low-quality videos. Significant differences in DISCERN score, per day views, likes, and comments were seen across the quality groups (P = 0.001 for views per day and P = 0.001 for other characteristics). According to the findings, low-quality videos had higher median values for daily views, likes, and comments. Conclusion Although nearly half of the videos were high-quality, low-quality videos attracted greater attention. Critical contributors to high-quality videos included academic, government, physician, and university-hospital sources. The findings highlight the importance of quality control methods on social media platforms and strategies to direct users to trustworthy health information. Authors should prioritize appropriate citations and evaluate YouTube and other comparable platforms for potential promotional low-quality information.