Assessment of the Accuracy of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Videos in English on YouTube according to the 2015 AHA Resuscitation Guidelines

Abstract

Over the last decade, YouTube has become one of the largest online resources for medical information. However, uploaded videos are published without any peer review or quality control, so incorrect and incomplete information can be easily disseminated via the virtual platform and can be perceived as correct. The YouTube website was searched for videos in English uploaded between 15 October 2015 and 21 October 2016 using the following keywords: “CPR,” “cardiopulmonary resuscitation,” and “basic life support.” This study had a cross-sectional analytical design. In the first evaluation, the accuracy of the videos was checked according to the information contained in the basic cardiac life support algorithm. In the second evaluation, we assessed whether advanced-level, innovative medical information was included in these videos; when included, the accuracy of such information was checked. Of 774 videos evaluated, 92 videos were included in the study after application of the exclusion criteria. The videos were scored on a scale ranging from 0 to 20 points. The mean total score, based on all criteria, was 4.79 ± 2.88. The highest mean total score was achieved by videos uploaded by official medical organizations (6.43 ± 3.57), followed by those uploaded by health professionals and organizations (4.25 ± 2.49), and those uploaded by unidentified sources. YouTube videos are insufficient in providing information about the basic life support algorithm and advanced-level information according to the 2015 AHA resuscitation guidelines for health professionals. The educational material published by health institutions that are constantly working in the area is a more reliable source of information on subjects that directly affect human life, such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Education for resuscitation

“…80 YouTube contains many videos about CPR education, but these videos provide insufficient information about BLS and advanced life support in adults and children according to current CPR guidelines. 81,82 In a systematic review of freely available mobile phone applications (Apps) giving instructions to perform adult CPR, only 15% adhered to current AHA or ERC guidelines. 83 Free open access medical education (FOAMed) is a dynamic collection of resources.…”

The Content Quality of YouTube Videos for Professional Medical Education: A Systematic Review

“…Among the remaining 18 studies, from which an average percentage of total possible QRT score could be computed or extracted, the average score was 44% with a range of 9%-71% (Figure 1). [10][11][12]14,[22][23][24]29,34,36,37,[39][40][41][42]44,47,48 The lowest mean score among studies that used internally validated QRTs was reported by Erdem and Karaca (10%), which used broad search criteria and videos from multiple author types. 23 Ferhatoglu et al, which also reported a low mean QRT score (13%), used a comprehensive QRT in which the authors analyzed each step of sleeve gastrectomy surgery.…”

“…Seven studies reported on the relationship between the video author type and scores on various QRTs (Figure 2). [22][23][24]36,39,40,42 Videos with authors classified as academic-physicians had higher internally validated QRT mean scores (46%) than those with authors classified as nonacademic-physicians or other (26%; P < .05, 95% confidence interval: 0.74-40.00). However, videos with authors classified as academic-physicians also had a wide range in QRT scores (range: 25%-75%).…”

Lehre in der Reanimation

“…YouTube enthält viele Videos zum CPR-Unterricht. Die Videos bieten jedoch nur unzureichende Informationen über BLS und erweiterte lebensrettende Maßnahmen für Erwachsene und Kinder auf Basis der aktuellen Leitlinien [ 82 , 83 ]. In einer systematischen Übersichtsarbeit zu frei verfügbaren Apps zur Anleitung von Reanimationsmaßnahmen bei Erwachsenen, basierten nur 15 % auf den aktuellen AHA- oder ERC-Leitlinien [ 84 ].…”