To assess the content, reliability and quality of information regarding vesicoureteral reflux in YouTube videos, as a source of patient information. In this cross-sectional study, a YouTube search with the keyword "vesicoureteral reflux" was performed on April 15, 2021, and the first 150 videos were listed according to relevancy. Advertisements, duplicate videos, videos in languages other than English, and videos without audio were excluded. Video features (time since upload, run time, number of like, dislike, views and comments) and source of upload were recorded. The quality, reliability and accuracy of the information were evaluated independently by an urologist and a pediatrician using the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) score, the 5-point modified DISCERN tool and the Global Quality Score (GQS). Video quality was assessed according to the source of upload and video features. The correlation analysis was performed between video features, GQS, JAMA and DISCERN scores. A total number of 125 videos were analyzed. The most common source of upload was hospital, clinician, practice (43.2%) and the majority of the content (25.6%) was about symptoms and diagnosis options. The median JAMA score, modified DISCERN score and GQS was 3 (1–4) (1–5) (1–5), respectively. JAMA scores were significantly higher in videos that were uploaded by hospital, clinician, practice (except tv programs). Modified DISCERN scores and GQS scores of videos uploaded by hospital, clinician, practice was significantly higher than Industry, advertisements, for profit-organizations and individual users, patients (see Summary Table). There is a positive correlation between the number of likes and VPI as well as JAMA, DISCERN, and GQS scores. There is a significant amount of VUR-related content on YouTube and the source of the vídeo influences on quality. Almost half of the vídeos have poor quality, and people apparently choose videos that are technically better, and "technical" videos over "experiential" ones. Summary Table Video quality assessments according to the source of the video. Table hospital, clinician, practice stand-alone health information websites, non-profit organizations industry, advertisements, for profit-organizations individual users, patients tv programs P ∗ JAMA score 3 (1–4) 2 (1–4) 2 (1–4) 2 (1–3) 2 (1–4) < 0.001 GQS 4 (1–5) 3 (1–5) 3 (1–5) 2 (1–4) 2 (1–4) 0.001 Modified DISCERN 4 (1–5) 3 (2–5) 2 (1–5) 2 (1–4) 3 (1–5) < 0.001 Abbreviation: GQS; Global Quality Score, JAMA; Journal of the American Medical Association. Note: Results are presented as median (min–max). Bold value indicates statistically significance. ∗ Kruskal–Wallis test. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]