YouTube as a source of information regarding the effect of vitamin C on coronavirus disease

Lee, Hyunsong; Chang, Min Cheol

doi:10.1016/j.ctim.2022.102827

Cited by 5 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the results of this study, the distribution of video quality and reliability varied, and the averages were not high, with mDISCERN at 2.35 and GQS at 3.09. These results were consistent with those of previous studies that analysed YouTube videos on medical topics 21–23 . This is likely due to the inherent limitations of YouTube videos, where anyone can upload content without peer review.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…These results were consistent with those of previous studies that analysed YouTube videos on medical topics. 21 , 22 , 23 This is likely due to the inherent limitations of YouTube videos, where anyone can upload content without peer review. However, in contrast with previous studies, the proportion of videos showing high quality was relatively higher at 28 (36.3%).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

YouTube as a source of information for pressure injury: Quality assessment and content analysis

Bang,

Jang,

Cho

et al. 2024

International Wound Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We aimed to assess the quality and reliability of pressure injury‐related videos uploaded on YouTube, analyse the sources and contents, and examine the correlation between video parameters. We searched YouTube using two keywords, “pressure ulcer” and “pressure sore”, on August 20, 2022. We sorted the videos according to their number of views and included the top 100 videos for each keyword. The quality of videos was assessed using the Global Quality Scale (GQS), while their reliability was evaluated by the modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) tool. In addition, we evaluated the videos in which content was included, analysed the correlations and differences between GQS, mDISCERN, and video parameters. We initially found a total of 100 videos for each keyword and finally included and analysed 77 videos. The mean scores for the mDISCERN and GQS were 2.35 ± 0.98 and 3.09 ± 0.99, respectively. Both GQS and mDISCERN showed statistically significant correlations with each other (rho = 0.54, p < 0.0001*) and with the length of the videos, respectively (rho = 0.36, p = 0.001*), (rho = 0.29, p = 0.01*). Of the videos created by physicians, 8 (57.1%) included content related to treatment, while of the videos created by nonphysician health personnel, 22 (57.9%) included content related to prevention. Analysing whether there were differences in video parameters based on the sources, we observed significant differences between sources in GQS (p < 0.0001*), mDISCERN (p < 0.0001*), and video length (p = 0.001*). In the post‐hoc analysis, videos uploaded by physicians or nonphysician health personnel showed higher quality and reliability than videos uploaded by other sources. Therefore, the results of this study could be useful for healthcare providers, as well as patients and caregivers, to search for high‐quality and reliable YouTube videos related to pressure injury.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

YouTube as a source of information for pressure injury: Quality assessment and content analysis

Bang,

Jang,

Cho

et al. 2024

International Wound Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the results of this study, the distribution of video quality and reliability varied, and the averages were not high, with mDISCERN at 2.35 and GQS at 3.09. These results were consistent with those of previous studies that analyzed YouTube videos on medical topics [21], [22], [23]. This is likely due to the inherent limitations of YouTube videos, where anyone can upload content without peer review.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

YouTube as a Source of Information for Pressure Injury: Quality Assessment and Content Analysis

Bang,

Jang,

Cho

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective We aimed to assess the quality and reliability of pressure injury-related videos uploaded on YouTube, analyze the sources and contents, and examine the correlation between video parameters. Methods We searched YouTube using two keywords, "pressure ulcer" and "pressure sore", on August 20, 2022. The quality of videos was assessed using the Global Quality Scale (GQS), while their reliability was evaluated by the modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) tool. In addition, we evaluated the videos in which content (risk factors, assessment, prevention, treatment) was included. Furthermore, we analyzed the correlation between GQS, mDISCERN, and video parameters and whether there were any differences in GQS, mDISCERN, and video parameters based on the sources that provided the videos. Results We initially found a total of 100 videos for each keyword and finally included and analyzed 77 videos. The mean scores for the mDISCERN and GQS were 2.35 ± 0.98 and 3.09 ± 0.99, respectively. Both GQS and mDISCERN showed statistically significant correlations with each other (rho = 0.54, p < 0.001*) and with the length of the videos, respectively (rho = 0.36, p < 0.01*), (rho = 0.29, p < 0.05*). Of the videos created by physicians, 8 (57.1%) included content related to treatment, while of the videos created by nonphysician health personnel, 22 (57.9%) included content related to prevention. Analyzing whether there were differences in video parameters based on the sources, we observed significant differences between sources in GQS (p < 0.001*), mDISCERN (p < 0.001*), and video length (p = 0.001*). In the post hoc analysis, videos uploaded by physicians or nonphysician health personnel showed higher quality and reliability than videos uploaded by other sources. Conclusions YouTube videos provide information on pressure injury and exhibit significant heterogeneity in terms of quality, reliability, and content composition. Therefore, the results of this study can be useful for healthcare providers, as well as patients and caregivers, to search for high-quality and reliable videos on YouTube.

show abstract

“…With the advent of the internet, patients can now obtain medical information on specific disorders or conditions online. [ 3 , 4 ] However, the Internet provides an overwhelming amount of information that extends beyond patients’ specific queries. Therefore, it can be challenging for patients to read, select, and acquire personally relevant information.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The assessment of the validity, safety, and utility of ChatGPT for patients with herniated lumbar disc: A preliminary study

Yang,

Chang

2024

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ChatGPT is perceived as a potential tool for patients diagnosed with herniated lumbar disc (HLD) to ask questions concerning desired information, with provision for necessary responses. In this preliminary study, we assessed the validity, safety, and utility of ChatGPT in patients with HLD. Two physicians specializing in the treatment of musculoskeletal disorders discussed and determined the 12 most frequently asked questions by patients with HLD in clinical practice. We used ChatGPT (version 4.0) to ask questions related to HLD. Each question was inputted into ChatGPT, and the responses were assessed by the 2 physicians. A Likert score was used to evaluate the validity, safety, and utility of the responses generated by ChatGPT. Each score for validity, safety, and utility was divided into 4 points, with a score of 4 indicating the most valid, safe, and useful answers and 1 point indicating the worst answers. Regarding validity, ChatGPT responses demonstrated 4 points for 9 questions (9/12, 75.0%) and 3 points for 3 questions (3/12, 25.0%). Regarding safety, ChatGPT scored 4 points for 11 questions (11/12, 91.7%) and 3 points for 1 question (1/12, 8.3%). Regarding utility, ChatGPT responses exhibited 4 points for 9 questions (9/12, 75.0%) and 3 points for 3 questions (3/12, 25.0%). ChatGPT demonstrates a tendency to offer relatively valid, safe, and useful information regarding HLD. However, users should exercise caution as ChatGPT may occasionally provide incomplete answers to some questions on HLD.

show abstract

YouTube as a source of information regarding the effect of vitamin C on coronavirus disease

Cited by 5 publications

References 22 publications

YouTube as a source of information for pressure injury: Quality assessment and content analysis

YouTube as a source of information for pressure injury: Quality assessment and content analysis

YouTube as a Source of Information for Pressure Injury: Quality Assessment and Content Analysis

The assessment of the validity, safety, and utility of ChatGPT for patients with herniated lumbar disc: A preliminary study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About