Educational Quality of YouTubeTM Videos on Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy.
Аннотация
Introduction
Prostate cancer is the most prevalent urogenital cancer among males. Radical prostatectomy remains the gold standard for localized prostate cancer treatment, with minimally invasive procedures (laparoscopic, robot-assisted laparoscopic) increasingly replacing open surgeries. YouTube™, a popular digital platform, hosts a substantial volume of prostate cancer-related videos, presenting a mix of accurate and misleading content. Given these challenges, researchers have proposed evaluation frameworks to assess the quality of YouTube™ videos. This study evaluates the educational adequacy and contextual relevance of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) videos on YouTube™ using established video evaluation criteria.
Methods
A search using the keyword "Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy" yielded 200 YouTube™ videos. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 131 videos were analyzed by three laparoscopic prostatectomy specialists. An evaluation was performed using scoring systems, including LAP-VEGaS, DISCERN, JAMA, GQS, and video power index (VPI).
Results
Of the 131 videos, 88 (67%) were from individual participants (Group 1), and 43 (33%) were from corporate channels (Group 2). Group 2 demonstrated significantly higher JAMA, GQS, and mDISCERN scores (P = .028, .005, and .001, respectively). The LAP-VEGaS score was also higher in Group 2 (7.09 ± 0.43) compared to Group 1 (5.08 ± 0.26; P < .001). VPI values were significantly greater in Group 2 (P = .008).
Conclusion
This study highlights a critical gap in the educational quality of LRP videos on YouTube™. Using comprehensive scoring systems, corporate channels consistently provided higher-quality educational content compared to individual contributors.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.