Otoplasty Online Information: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Websites and Videos that Patients View Regarding Cosmetic Ear Surgery

Abstract

Physicians should be aware of both websites and videos available online regarding the otoplasty procedure to provide quality care. This study systematically analyzes the authorships, reliability, quality, and readability of the websites, as well as the authorships and primary objectives of the videos regarding otoplasty. Validated instruments were used to analyze the reliability, quality, and readability of websites, and videos were systematically categorized and analyzed. A Google search was conducted, and the first five pages of results were included in this study. After excluding unrelated websites, the remaining 44 websites were categorized by authorship (physician, patient, academic, or unaffiliated) and were analyzed using the validated DISCERN instrument for reliability and quality, as well as various other validated instruments to measure readability. A YouTube search was also conducted, and the first 50 relevant videos were included in the study. These videos were categorized by authorship and their primary objective. Website authorships were physician-dominated. Reliability, quality, and overall DISCERN score differ between the four authorship groups by a statistically significant margin (Kruskall-Wallis test, < 0.05). Unaffiliated websites were the most reliable, and physician websites were the least reliable. Academic websites were of the highest quality, and patient websites were of the lowest quality. Readability did not differ significantly between the groups, though the readability measurements made showed a general lack of material easily readable by the general public. YouTube was likewise dominated by physician-authored videos. While the physician-authored videos sought mainly to inform and to advertise, patient-authored videos sought mainly to provide the patient's perspective. Academic organizations showed very little representation on YouTube, and the YouTube views on otoplasty videos were dominated by the top 20 videos, which represented over 93% of the total views of videos included in this study.

The Educational Reliability and Viewer Interest of YouTube Videos Presenting Otoplasty Procedures

“…Intriguingly, they concluded that physician-associated websites were the least reliable source of information, whereas unaffiliated websites were with the most reliable information for the patients who are seeking knowledge about otoplasty. Besides, the academic websites were with the highest quality of information, but the patient-mediated websites were with the lowest quality 20 …”

“…16,17 They also stated that the reliability of these videos was inconsistent depending on the specialties and video sources. 18,19 Nissan et al 20 conducted a study to evaluate the view of the patients about otoplasty procedure. They reviewed websites and the first 50 relevant videos presenting information regarding otoplasty from the patients' perspectives.…”

Social Media Utilization in Otolaryngology: A Scoping Review

“…Of the 43 studies investigating SM use for patient education, 16 analyzed the composition and quality of videos on YouTube, a popular open-source video-sharing platform, for various otolaryngological procedures and conditions. Clinical contexts included education regarding vestibular schwannoma, laryngeal cancer and laryngectomy, cochlear implantation, pediatric tonsillectomy, and rhinoplasty 22,25,96,[108][109][110]167,168,[171][172][173] ; online portrayal of hearing loss and hearing aid use 6,101 ; and instructional videos on "how to stop a nosebleed" and "how to use nasal sprays". 67,170 Several studies utilized the Discern instrument, a validated tool used to judge the quality and assess the reliability of published medical information, 177 and in general, found significant variability in quality and reliability of videos.…”

Beurteilung von im Internet verfügbaren deutschsprachigen Patienteninformationen zum Hörsturz

“…Die meisten vorangegangenen Arbeiten kategorisierten die untersuchten Webseiten nicht nach den Urhebern. Eine Studie von Nissan et al [42] unterteilte die Urheber in 4 Autorenkategorien: Arzt, Patient, akademisch oder nicht zuzuordnen. Eine andere Arbeit von San Georgi et al [39] [20].…”

“…In der vorliegenden Analyse zeigte sich eine mäßiggradige Bewertung. Vorangegangene Studien zu anderen Themen wiesen ähnliche DISCERN-Ergebnisse [20,40] oder sogar schlechtere [20,42] auf. Ein HON-Zertifikat zeigte sich bei 0-30,6 % der in vorausgegangenen Studien analysierten Internetseiten zu HNO-Themen [20,40,41,43,44].…”