The Reliability of YouTube Videos Describing Stereotactic Radiosurgery: A Call for Action

ReFaey, Karim; Tripathi, Shashwat; Bohnen, Angela M.; Waddle, Mark R.; Peterson, Jennifer; Vazquez-Ramos, Carla; Bondoc, Celine M.; Quiñones‐Hinojosa, Alfredo; Trifiletti, Daniel M.

doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2019.01.086

Cited by 17 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The DISCERN and JAMA tools do not take into account every quality or attribution criterion. However, these are validated instruments and have been used by several other YouTube quality evaluation studies and are regarded as reliable [9,10,14,15,29,41,42]. In our study, the interclass correlation between the four raters was excellent, indicating that our results were robust.…”

Section: Limitationssupporting

confidence: 60%

“…The quality of YouTube videos on other neurological topics such as hydrocephalus, lumbar disc herniation, glioblastoma treatment, and stereotactic radiosurgery has been found to be poor and incomplete [10,14,15,29]. Even though YouTube is one of the most popular sources for medical information, patients still use other sources such as Google or online health forums to develop understanding of their disease.…”

Section: Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The quality and reliability of YouTube videos have been previously evaluated for hydrocephalus, lumbar disc herniation, stereotactic radiosurgery, and several other conditions [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17], but analysis has not yet been carried out for intracranial aneurysms. Based on the answers to all of these questions, rate the overall quality of the publication as a source of information about treatment choices…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

YouTube as a source of patient information on brain aneurysms: a content-quality and audience engagement analysis

Szmuda

Ali

Kamieniecki

et al. 2021

Neurol Neurochir Pol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:The internet allows patients to access a vast amount of health information. We aimed to evaluate the credibility of YouTube videos that members of the public are accessing on brain aneurysms, and to evaluate what characteristics drive audience engagement. Material and methods:The first 50 videos for each of the following search terms were taken for analysis: 'brain aneurysm' , 'cerebral aneurysm' and 'intracranial aneurysm' . The quality of each video was evaluated by two neurosurgeons and two medical students independently using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and the DISCERN instruments. Qualitative and quantitative video data was analysed for quality and audience engagement. Inter-rater agreement was ascertained.Results: Out of a total of 150 videos, 70 met the inclusion criteria. The mean total DISCERN score was 36.5 ± 8.4 (out of 75 points), indicating that the videos were of poor quality. The mean JAMA score was 2.7 ± 0.7 (out of 4 points). Inter-rater agreement between the four raters was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.90 for DISCERN and 0.93 for JAMA). Most videos were uploaded by hospitals (50%) or educational health channels (30%). Videos had a higher number of average daily views when they included animation (P = 0.0093) and diagrams (P = 0.0422). Conclusions:YouTube is a poor source of patient information on brain aneurysms. Our quality and audience engagement analysis may help content creators (i.e. hospital staff and physicians) to create more holistic, educational and engaging medical videos concerning brain aneurysms. Physicians could usefully refer their patients to the highest quality videos that we have found.

show abstract

Section: Limitationssupporting

confidence: 60%

Section: Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

YouTube as a source of patient information on brain aneurysms: a content-quality and audience engagement analysis

Szmuda

Ali

Kamieniecki

et al. 2021

Neurol Neurochir Pol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, YouTube quality analysis studies on other neurological topics, such as glioblastoma treatment and stereotactic radiosurgery, have been done and also show a low or fair quality of videos at best. 7,18 Our analysis shows that the quality of stroke videos may be improved by including additional resources in video, treatment options with the benefits and the risks and how it may affect a patient's quality of life. The value of YouTube videos regarding the social aspects of stroke have been researched.…”

Section: Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

YouTube as a source of patient information for stroke: A content-quality and an audience engagement analysis

Szmuda

Alkhater

Albrahim

et al. 2020

Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Stroke is the second leading cause of death worldwide following ischemic heart disease, and the fifth in the United States. The video-sharing database, YouTube, is the second most popular visited website with more than 2 billion users, thus it's increasingly being used as a medium for delivering health information. Aim: We aimed to evaluate the quality, reliability and audience engagement of stroke-related YouTube videos. Methods: In October 2019 we conducted a search on YouTube using 5 keywords: stroke, brain attack, hemorrhagic stroke, ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack. We selected the first 30 videos from each search query for further analysis. The validated DISCERN instrument was used (a score of 0-5 per question) to assess the videos by four independent raters. We then recorded qualitative data and quantitative data for each video. Results: After sorting through 150 stroke videos, a total of 101 unique YouTube videos met our inclusion criteria. We found that the mean overall quality of YouTube videos according to DISCERN is of fair quality. Most videos (65.3%) were uploaded by hospitals, mentioned the symptoms of stroke (66.3%), had a doctor speaking (60.4%) and contained diagrams (20.8%). Conclusion: YouTube is a useful source of gathering information about treatment choices for patients and their families as the quality of You-Tube videos is fair. The audience engagement suggestions in our paper may help content creators improve the appeal of YouTube videos.

show abstract

“…Bibliometric YouTube is not only used in connecting friends, family members, colleagues, and friends, it is used as a tool for patient education. YouTube is sometimes used to educate patients that are undergoing treatment or being diagnosed with some identified diseases [1][2][3][4][5]. YouTube can be used to share videos from peerreviewed content on websites to the general public [1].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review on the Reliability of Medical Contents on YouTube

Okagbue¹,

Oguntunde²,

Bishop³

et al. 2020

Int. J. Onl. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p class="0abstract"><strong>Abstract—</strong> Social media and YouTube, in particular, has become an avenue for quick dissemination of information. Patients now search the YouTube website for information on diseases, treatment options, surgery, and general health information. This paper reviews the different reliability methods, results, conclusions and recommendations of contributions on the medical videos on YouTube. A keyword search was done on different databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar to generate articles related to the subject matter. No eligibility criteria were defined because the research is partly systematic. Descriptive statistics were used to present the information obtained from the analysis of the previously published papers in this context. � � The results are as follows: (i). DISCERN, JAMAS and GQS are the most frequent assessment tools used by authors in the determination of the reliability of medical videos on YouTube. (ii). 60% of the independent reviewers that assessed the reliability of the YouTube videos are often two in number. (iii). 65% of the articles concluded that medical videos on YouTube contain misleading information. (iv). User engagements for low and high-quality videos are 58% and 42% respectively. (v). 36.3 % of the total videos were uploaded by trusted sources such as medical and health professionals from recognized or prestigious hospitals, while 63.7% were uploaded by other sources whose affiliations cannot be independently verified. (vi). Out of the total 2675 medical videos assessed, 1589 (59%) are categorized as having useful contents that can influence positively on patient education while 1086 (41%) are categorized as misleading and (vii). Only 35% of the papers strongly recommended that medical videos on YouTube are useful and can be a good source of patient education. Awareness is needed to educate patients on the benefits and dangers of assessing medical videos on YouTube. Videos uploaded by authentic medical personnel or organizations are strongly recommended. </p>

show abstract

The Reliability of YouTube Videos Describing Stereotactic Radiosurgery: A Call for Action

Cited by 17 publications

References 11 publications

YouTube as a source of patient information on brain aneurysms: a content-quality and audience engagement analysis

YouTube as a source of patient information on brain aneurysms: a content-quality and audience engagement analysis

YouTube as a source of patient information for stroke: A content-quality and an audience engagement analysis

Review on the Reliability of Medical Contents on YouTube

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About