Evaluating the quality and reliability of YouTube videos on myopia: a video content analysis.
DISCERN score
Ensuring quality information for patients (EQIP) score
Global quality score (GQS)
Journal of the american medical association (JAMA) score
YouTube
Journal
International ophthalmology
ISSN: 1573-2630
Titre abrégé: Int Ophthalmol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 7904294
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Jul 2024
18 Jul 2024
Historique:
received:
14
04
2024
accepted:
14
07
2024
medline:
19
7
2024
pubmed:
19
7
2024
entrez:
18
7
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To evaluate the quality and reliability of YouTube videos as an educational resource about myopia. The videos were identified by searching YouTube with the keywords 'myopia' and 'nearsightedness', using the website's default search settings. The number of views, likes, dislikes, view ratio, source of the upload, country of origin, video type, and described treatment techniques were assessed. Each video was evaluated using the DISCERN, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP), Health On the Net Code of Conduct Certification (HONcode), and the Global Quality Score (GQS) scales. A total of 112 videos were included. The classification of videos by source indicated that the top three contributors were health channels (30 videos [26.8%]), physicians (24 videos [21.4%]), and academic centers (19 videos [16.9%]). Most of these videos originated from the United States (74 videos [66.1%]) and focused on the pathophysiology (n = 89, 79.4%) and the treatment (n = 77, 68.7%) of myopia. Statistical comparisons among the groups of video sources showed no significant difference in the mean DISCERN score (p = 0.102). However, significant differences were noted in the JAMA (p = 0.011), GQS (p = 0.009), HONcode (p = 0.011), and EQIP (p = 0.002) scores. This study underscored the variability in the quality and reliability of YouTube videos related to myopia, with most content ranging from 'weak to moderate' quality based on the DISCERN and GQS scales, yet appearing to be 'excellent' according to the HONcode and EQIP scales. Videos uploaded by physicians generally exhibited higher standards, highlighting the importance of expert involvement in online health information dissemination. Given the potential risks of accessing incorrect medical data that can affect the decision-making processes of patients, caution should be exercised when using online content as a source of information.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39026115
doi: 10.1007/s10792-024-03250-2
pii: 10.1007/s10792-024-03250-2
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
329Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.
Références
Kuçuk B, Sirakaya E (2020) An analysis of YouTube videos as educational resources for patients about refractive surgery. Cornea 39(4):491–494. https://doi.org/10.1097/ico.0000000000002237
doi: 10.1097/ico.0000000000002237
pubmed: 31868847
Drozd B, Couvillon E, Suarez A (2018) Medical YouTube videos and methods of evaluation: literature review. JMIR Med Educ 4(1):e3. https://doi.org/10.2196/mededu.8527
doi: 10.2196/mededu.8527
pubmed: 29434018
pmcid: 5826977
Tanyıldız B, Oklar M (2023) Evaluating the quality, utility, and reliability of the information in uveitis videos shared on YouTube. Int Ophthalmol 43(2):549–555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-022-02454-8
doi: 10.1007/s10792-022-02454-8
pubmed: 35945414
Young BK, Verter E, Howard MA (2020) Quality analysis of publicly available videos for pediatric strabismus surgery. J aapos 24(2):102–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaapos.2019.11.009
doi: 10.1016/j.jaapos.2019.11.009
pubmed: 31981612
Xiang ZY, Zou HD (2020) Recent epidemiology study data of myopia. J Ophthalmol 2020:4395278. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/4395278
doi: 10.1155/2020/4395278
pubmed: 33489329
pmcid: 7803099
Holden BA, Fricke TR, Wilson DA, Jong M, Naidoo KS, Sankaridurg P et al (2016) Global prevalence of myopia and high myopia and temporal trends from 2000 through 2050. Ophthalmology 123(5):1036–1042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.01.006
doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.01.006
pubmed: 26875007
Saw SM, Gazzard G, Shih-Yen EC, Chua WH (2005) Myopia and associated pathological complications. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 25(5):381–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2005.00298.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2005.00298.x
pubmed: 16101943
Mangan MS, Cakir A, Yurttaser Ocak S, Tekcan H, Balci S, Ozcelik KA (2020) Analysis of the quality, reliability, and popularity of information on strabismus on YouTube. Strabismus 28(4):175–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/09273972.2020.1836002
doi: 10.1080/09273972.2020.1836002
pubmed: 33074741
Sakallioğlu AK, Garip R (2022) What hundreds of millions of patients with dry eye will find on YouTube: a quality and reliability research of the YouTube videos. Cornea 41(8):1016–1022. https://doi.org/10.1097/ico.0000000000003064
doi: 10.1097/ico.0000000000003064
pubmed: 35587443
Ozturkmen C, Berhuni M (2023) YouTube as a source of patient information for pterygium surgery. Ther Adv Ophthalmol 15:25158414231174144. https://doi.org/10.1177/25158414231174143
doi: 10.1177/25158414231174143
pubmed: 37255623
pmcid: 10226336
Kaptı HB, Erdem B (2023) Evaluation of the reliability and quality of YouTube videos on congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Cureus 15(3):e36365. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.36365
doi: 10.7759/cureus.36365
pubmed: 36945232
pmcid: 10024941
Morahan-Martin JM (2004) How internet users find, evaluate, and use online health information: a cross-cultural review. Cyberpsychol Behav 7(5):497–510. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2004.7.497
doi: 10.1089/cpb.2004.7.497
pubmed: 15667044
Erdem MN, Karaca S (2018) Evaluating the accuracy and quality of the information in kyphosis videos shared on YouTube. Spine 43(22):E1334–E1339
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002691
pubmed: 29664816
Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R (1999) DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health 53(2):105–111. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.53.2.105
doi: 10.1136/jech.53.2.105
pubmed: 10396471
pmcid: 1756830
Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA (1997) Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: caveant lector et viewor–Let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA 277(15):1244–1245
doi: 10.1001/jama.1997.03540390074039
pubmed: 9103351
Moult B, Franck LS, Brady H (2004) Ensuring quality information for patients: development and preliminary validation of a new instrument to improve the quality of written health care information. Health Expect 7(2):165–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2004.00273.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2004.00273.x
pubmed: 15117391
pmcid: 5060233
Vought R, Vought V, Herzog I, Greenstein SA (2023) EQIP quality assessment of refractive surgery resources on YouTube. Semin Ophthalmol 38(8):768–772. https://doi.org/10.1080/08820538.2023.2209168
doi: 10.1080/08820538.2023.2209168
pubmed: 37133414
Boyer C, Selby M, Scherrer JR, Appel RD (1998) The health on the net code of conduct for medical and health websites. Comput Biol Med 28(5):603–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-4825(98)00037-7
doi: 10.1016/s0010-4825(98)00037-7
pubmed: 9861515
Bernard A, Langille M, Hughes S, Rose C, Leddin D, van Veldhuyzen-Zanten S (2007) A systematic review of patient inflammatory bowel disease information resources on the World Wide Web. Am J Gastroenterol 102(9):2070–2077
doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01325.x
pubmed: 17511753
Panthagani J, Hamze H, Riaz A, Moussa G (2023) Evaluating the quality and readability of online information on keratoconus treatment. Can J Ophthalmol 58(2):150–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjo.2021.09.006
doi: 10.1016/j.jcjo.2021.09.006
pubmed: 34678173
Irgat SG, Oruç MS, Özcura F (2022) How reliable and popular are trabeculectomy videos on Youtube? Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol 29(3):141–146. https://doi.org/10.4103/meajo.meajo_86_22
doi: 10.4103/meajo.meajo_86_22
pubmed: 37408719
Sakallioglu AK, Garip R (2022) The reliability of trabeculectomy surgical videos on the internet for educational purposes in the changing world. Surgeon 20(6):e371–e377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2021.12.006
doi: 10.1016/j.surge.2021.12.006
pubmed: 34991985
Parmar UPS, Ichhpujani P, Chahal R, Singh RB (2023) Reliability of ahmed glaucoma valve surgical videos for educational purposes. Int Ophthalmol 43(9):3425–3432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-023-02734-x
doi: 10.1007/s10792-023-02734-x
pubmed: 37191927
Şahin A, Şahin M, Türkcü FM (2019) YouTube as a source of information in retinopathy of prematurity. Ir J Med Sci 188(2):613–617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-018-1902-2
doi: 10.1007/s11845-018-1902-2
pubmed: 30238185
Seyyar SA, Tıskaoğlu NS (2023) YouTube as a source of information on keratoconus: a social media analysis. Clin Exp Optom 106(1):10–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/08164622.2021.2012429
doi: 10.1080/08164622.2021.2012429
pubmed: 34877926
Çetinkaya Yaprak A, Erkan PÇ (2022) Assessment of the quality of information on treatment of keratoconus on YouTube. Int Ophthalmol 42(5):1499–1505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-021-02139-8
doi: 10.1007/s10792-021-02139-8
pubmed: 34845598