Dear Editors,

To start with, I would like to congratulate Sancı et al. for their valuable work and appreciate their efforts. As a surgeon interested in geriatric urogynecological surgery, I read with interest both the YouTube article they introduced to the new literature and their previous articles in the same journal, in which they shared the results of geriatric robotics-assisted surgery [1, 2]. The authors emphasized in their study that the quality of the YouTube videos used to inform geriatric patients before sacrocolpopexy surgery was adequate, but the reliability of their scientific content was weak [1]. Research on the quality and reliability of YouTube videos for patient decision-making and health professional education is ongoing. The potential benefits and drawbacks of YouTube for educating patients should be considered. The information available online can play an important role in shaping patients' understanding of the disease and influencing their decision making. However, the complexity and inconsistency of such information may create challenges for all patients, not just those scheduled for sacrocolpopexy, seeking reliable guidance. I would like to thank the authors again for this study and address some of my concerns.

First, I believe that the low reliability of YouTube videos is due to the fact that some users upload videos to YouTube without an academic title and with commercial concerns. What are the authors' thoughts on this subject?

Second, what do the authors think about the results of the video evaluation scores they used in their study that would have emerged if another scoring system (e.g., Journal of American Medical Association benchmarks, global quality score, patient education materials evaluation tool, etc.) had been used?

Finally, in order to ensure the standardization of videos and information content, it would be very useful for both patients and surgeons interested in the subject if short and scientifically content-rich videos are prepared by urogynecology associations and shared on YouTube or other social media platforms. What do the authors think about this subject?

Once again, I would like to thank the authors for contributing both of their studies to the literature.