Hysteroscopy in the new media: quality and reliability analysis of hysteroscopy procedures on YouTube™.
GQS
Hysteroscopy
Web information
YouTube
mDISCERN
Journal
Archives of gynecology and obstetrics
ISSN: 1432-0711
Titre abrégé: Arch Gynecol Obstet
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8710213
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2023
11 2023
Historique:
received:
05
07
2023
accepted:
20
07
2023
medline:
26
9
2023
pubmed:
12
8
2023
entrez:
11
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Hysteroscopy plays a crucial role in diagnosing and managing various intrauterine pathologies. However, its execution can be influenced by patients' perception and understanding, which are often shaped by digital resources such as YouTube This study aims to assess the reliability and quality of hysteroscopy information available to patients on YouTube A comprehensive analysis of YouTube The average mDISCERN and GQS scores for the evaluated videos were below the optimal three points, highlighting the lack of fluency, comprehensiveness, and reliability of the available information. Notably, while videos produced by experts, including doctors and professional channels, had higher scores, they still fell short of the minimum score of 3. These videos also were not considered more suitable for either patients or trainees. Videos that were assessed as reliable (mDISCERN ≥ 3) were observed to be longer and were more frequently produced by doctors. These videos were suggested more to trainees rather than patients. Similarly, videos deemed as fluent and comprehensive (GQS ≥ 3) were longer and were more often recommended to patients. While YouTube
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Hysteroscopy plays a crucial role in diagnosing and managing various intrauterine pathologies. However, its execution can be influenced by patients' perception and understanding, which are often shaped by digital resources such as YouTube
PURPOSE
This study aims to assess the reliability and quality of hysteroscopy information available to patients on YouTube
METHODS
A comprehensive analysis of YouTube
RESULTS
The average mDISCERN and GQS scores for the evaluated videos were below the optimal three points, highlighting the lack of fluency, comprehensiveness, and reliability of the available information. Notably, while videos produced by experts, including doctors and professional channels, had higher scores, they still fell short of the minimum score of 3. These videos also were not considered more suitable for either patients or trainees. Videos that were assessed as reliable (mDISCERN ≥ 3) were observed to be longer and were more frequently produced by doctors. These videos were suggested more to trainees rather than patients. Similarly, videos deemed as fluent and comprehensive (GQS ≥ 3) were longer and were more often recommended to patients.
CONCLUSIONS
While YouTube
Identifiants
pubmed: 37568070
doi: 10.1007/s00404-023-07172-9
pii: 10.1007/s00404-023-07172-9
pmc: PMC10520162
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1515-1524Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Jul;98(30):e16459
pubmed: 31348247
Health Informatics J. 2015 Sep;21(3):173-94
pubmed: 24670899
Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2021 Jun;30(3):147-153
pubmed: 31855088
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010 Jul-Aug;17(4):436-48
pubmed: 20621007
Inform Health Soc Care. 2009 Sep;34(3):136-48
pubmed: 19670004
Cureus. 2023 Feb 19;15(2):e35182
pubmed: 36960249
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2022 Sep;48(9):2459-2465
pubmed: 35698805
J Rheumatol. 2012 May;39(5):899-903
pubmed: 22467934
Minerva Med. 2021 Feb;112(1):12-19
pubmed: 33438376
J Korean Med Sci. 2020 Jun 29;35(25):e196
pubmed: 32597042
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2021 Apr;303(4):999-1007
pubmed: 33211175
Fertil Steril. 2010 Jul;94(2):730-7
pubmed: 19368910
Am J Health Promot. 2020 Jul;34(6):677-680
pubmed: 32030989
Can J Anaesth. 1990 May;37(4 Pt 1):444-7
pubmed: 2340614
Am J Gastroenterol. 2007 Sep;102(9):2070-7
pubmed: 17511753
Nurs Health Sci. 2004 Dec;6(4):315-20
pubmed: 15507052
J Pers Med. 2022 Oct 28;12(11):
pubmed: 36579495
J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2023 Jun;52(6):102588
pubmed: 37061093
Medicina (Kaunas). 2022 Nov 17;58(11):
pubmed: 36422203
Diagnostics (Basel). 2023 Jan 17;13(3):
pubmed: 36766443
J Med Internet Res. 2011 Feb 23;13(1):e20
pubmed: 21345783
Health Serv Res. 2006 Jun;41(3 Pt 1):819-36
pubmed: 16704514
J Clin Med. 2022 Dec 26;12(1):
pubmed: 36614977
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016 Feb;197:147-55
pubmed: 26748390
Cureus. 2021 Nov 30;13(11):e20044
pubmed: 34987925
Climacteric. 2020 Aug;23(4):376-383
pubmed: 32396751
Neuron. 2007 Aug 2;55(3):377-91
pubmed: 17678852
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2022 Jan;156(1):112-118
pubmed: 33615469
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Dec 05;12:CD009461
pubmed: 30521679
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Sep - Oct;27(6):1414-1416
pubmed: 31884079
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018 May - Jun;25(4):558
pubmed: 29410381
World J Urol. 2023 Jul;41(7):1891-1896
pubmed: 37272960
Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2021 Jun;30(3):125-132
pubmed: 31971476
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2021 Dec;155(3):425-432
pubmed: 33686708
J Health Commun. 2006;11 Suppl 1:147-56
pubmed: 16641080
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2020 Apr;301(4):885-894
pubmed: 32140807
J Med Internet Res. 2009 Feb 20;11(1):e4
pubmed: 19275980
Asian J Surg. 2011 Oct;34(4):175-80
pubmed: 22464834
J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999 Feb;53(2):105-11
pubmed: 10396471
J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2021 Jan;50(1):101976
pubmed: 33166706
Medicina (Kaunas). 2022 Aug 20;58(8):
pubmed: 36013599
Surg Technol Int. 2020 Nov 28;37:161-166
pubmed: 32715446
J Chin Med Assoc. 2014 Sep;77(9):477-81
pubmed: 25160807
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014 May-Jun;21(3):454-9
pubmed: 23962572
Int J Med Inform. 2006 Jan;75(1):8-28
pubmed: 16125453
J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1997 Feb;4(2):255-8
pubmed: 9050737