[Results] After excluding the repeated links and non-concordant videos between both urologists, we analysed 147 videos. The Kappa statistic was 0.89 (95% CI0.85-0.96). 37% were considered SEB and 63% were considered NSEB. The median of reproductions in the SEB group was 24.356 (96-126.410) and 44.416 for NSEB (190-10.318.642); this difference was statistically significant. The median duration was 254 seconds(46-984) for the SEB group and 228 seconds for the NSEB (23-2.880); the median time of publication was 42 (16-103) months for the SEB group and 29 (11-134) months for the other one. 83% of SEB videos were published in health networks and television programs,while 58% of NSEB were published in user blogs. The SEB videos show more information about pathophysiology,aetiology, endothelial dysfunction, diagnosis and treatment than NSEB (p<0.001).

[Material and methods] We searched on YouTube thrree terms ("Problemas de Erección" (PE), "Impotencia"(I) y "Disfunción Eréctil" (DE)). The sixteen first videos from each term were selected for the analysis. Two independent urologists reviewed all videos and classified all of them in scientific evidence-based (SEB) or not scientific evidence-based (NSEB) according to the current literature. In the subgroup analysis we compare: number of visits, duration, time of publication, source and type of information.

[Objective] The objective of our study is to stablish the scientific quality of the available information in YouTube about erectile dysfunction (ED).

[Conclusions] 37% of the videos were consideredSEB. The NSEB videos were significantly more playedthan SEB group.