Assessment of reliability and information quality of YouTube videos about root canal treatment after 2016

Jung, Myoung-jun; Seo, Mi Seon

doi:10.1186/s12903-022-02540-4

Cited by 20 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A point is added if a video is concise, reliable, balanced, references sources, and addresses uncertainty. Higher scores indicate greater reliability [ 13 ]. JAMA has a maximum score of 4, where a point is added if a video addresses authorship, attribution, disclosure, and currency (dates when content was posted and updated).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessment of Video Quality and Reliability of YouTube Videos Regarding Meniscus Tear Rehabilitation

Abed¹,

Ray²,

Smathers³

et al. 2023

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:YouTube is an open-source platform where creators can record and upload videos for others to see. As the popularity of YouTube increases, it is being increasingly used for healthcare-related information. However, with the relative ease of uploading videos, the content quality of individual videos is not regulated. This study aimed to assess and analyze the content quality of YouTube videos concerning meniscus tear rehabilitation. We hypothesized that most videos would be of low quality.Methods: The keywords "meniscus tear treatment," "meniscus tear recovery," "meniscus tear physical therapy," and "meniscus tear rehabilitation" were used for searching videos on YouTube. A total of 50 videos was analyzed in this study that related to meniscal rehabilitation, grouped into one of four categories: nonphysician professionals (physical therapists and chiropractors) (n=28), physicians (with or without academic affiliation) (n=5), non-academic healthcare-related websites (n=10), and non-professional individuals (n=7). Videos were then assessed by two independent authors using three scoring systems, which included the Global Quality Scale (GQS), modified DISCERN, and Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) scores. The number of likes, comments, video length, and views were collected for each video. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare quality scores and video analytics.Results: The overall median GQS, modified DISCERN, and JAMA scores were 3 (interquartile range (IQR): 2-3), 2 (IQR: 2-2), and 2 (IQR: 2-2), respectively. Sorted by GQS scores, 20 videos were of low quality (40%), 21 were intermediate (42%), and nine were of high quality (18%). Non-physician professionals produced 56% (28 of 50) of the videos assessed, with physical therapists constituting 86% (24 of 28) of this category. The median duration of each video was 6:54 (IQR: 3:59-10:50) minutes, views was 42,262 (IQR: 12,491), and likes was 877 (IQR: 239-4,850). Kruskal-Wallis testing showed a significant difference between JAMA scores, likes, and video length duration between video categories (p<0.028). Conclusion:The overall median reliability of YouTube videos on meniscus tear rehabilitation measured by JAMA and modified DISCERN scores was low. The overall median video quality, as assessed by GQS scores, was intermediate. Video quality was highly variable, with fewer than 20% meeting high-quality standards. As a result, patients are often viewing lower quality videos when researching their condition online.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…JAMA has a maximum score of 4, where a point is added if a video addresses authorship, attribution, disclosure, and currency (dates when content was posted and updated). Higher scores indicate greater reliability [ 13 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Video Quality and Reliability of YouTube Videos Regarding Meniscus Tear Rehabilitation

Abed¹,

Ray²,

Smathers³

et al. 2023

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It was developed by Bernard et al in 2007, when it was used to evaluate online patient materials for inflammatory bowel disease. Since then, it has been used to evaluate several health and medical information websites and videos 30–32 . It allows users to evaluate the overall quality (natural flow and comprehensiveness) of a video's content on a five‐point Likert scale (see Appendix S1).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since then, it has been used to evaluate several health and medical information websites and videos. [30][31][32] It allows users to evaluate the overall quality (natural flow and comprehensiveness) of a video's content on a five-point Likert scale (see Appendix S1). While a score of one point indicates the poorest quality, a score of five indicates excellent quality.…”

Section: Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the understandability and actionability of online educational videos on pre‐dialysis chronic kidney disease

Furukawa,

Okuhara,

Okada

et al. 2023

Nephrology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimIt remains undetermined whether online education videos for Japanese patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are easy to understand and allow adoption of behavioural changes. This study quantitatively assessed the understandability and applicability of online education videos for patients with CKD.MethodsIn September 2021, we identified 200 videos on YouTube using the Japanese translations of the keywords ‘kidney,’ ‘kidney disease,’ ‘CKD,’ and ‘chronic kidney disease.’ We used the Japanese version of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool to evaluate the understandability and usability of webpages on a scale of 0% to 100%. The cut‐off was set at 70%.ResultsA total of 54 videos were evaluated. The overall understandability and actionability of the materials were 57.6 (SD = 22.6) and 53.7 (SD = 33.4), respectively. Approximately 70% and 60% of the materials were considered insufficiently understandable and actionable, respectively. Most videos lacked a summary and had difficulty in using only everyday language. Most videos included at least one action for the audience to take. However, many failed to break down the action into sequential steps. They also lack visual aids to encourage the audience to take action.ConclusionOur results suggest that current information on pre‐dialysis chronic kidney disease was not presented in a manner that can be applied by laypeople.

show abstract

“…However, these videos are not peer-reviewed, and there are concerns about the scientific validity, reliability, and accuracy of their content, which may offer inaccurate and potentially misleading information [ 12 ]. In light of this, many studies have analyzed the accuracy and quality of the information contained in these videos [ 10 13 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

YouTube as a source of information about rubber dam: quality and content analysis

Kiraz,

Mumcu,

Kurnaz

2024

Restor Dent Endod

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the content, quality and demographics of YouTube videos about rubber dam as an information source for clinicians and dental students. Materials and Methods “Rubber dam,” “rubber dam application,” “dental isolation,” “rubber dam isolation,” and “dental dam” were determined as keywords for the detection of YouTube videos related to rubber dam. Seventy 3 videos were evaluated and a total of 34 videos met the inclusion criteria. All selected videos were evaluated according to 8 parameters. The videos were scored 1 if the videos contained information about the selected parameter, but if the videos did not contain enough information, they were scored 0. The data were statistically analyzed with the analysis of variance and post hoc Tukey test ( p < 0.05). Results We found that 41% of the videos have poor, 47% have moderate, and 12% have good information. There is a statistically significant difference in time between poor and good information content ( p < 0.05). There is a statistically significant difference between the poor and good information in the video information and quality index 1. Conclusions Rubber dam-related videos available on YouTube are generally moderately informed and insufficient. YouTube is currently not sufficient as a source of information for patients and clinicians at the moment. The YouTube platform should be developed and enriched with quality information on current and dental issues.

show abstract

Assessment of reliability and information quality of YouTube videos about root canal treatment after 2016

Cited by 20 publications

References 26 publications

Assessment of Video Quality and Reliability of YouTube Videos Regarding Meniscus Tear Rehabilitation

Assessment of Video Quality and Reliability of YouTube Videos Regarding Meniscus Tear Rehabilitation

Evaluating the understandability and actionability of online educational videos on pre‐dialysis chronic kidney disease

YouTube as a source of information about rubber dam: quality and content analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About