Revista internacional de andrologia · 2019
YouTube as a source of premature ejaculation.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
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.
Kaynak Yurdaer, Kaya Coskun, Aykaç Aykut
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the quality of information in You Tube videos pertaining to premature ejaculation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search for "premature ejaculation" (PE) was performed on You Tube in August 2018. Two senior urologist viewers watched and categorized each video for their sources, suggestions and information contents (excellent, fair or poor).
RESULTS: Of the three hundred videos viewed on You Tube, 155 videos were included and analyzed. Mean video length (mean±standard deviation) was 3.08±2.02min. The information content was excellent only in 17 (10.9%) of all videos while for a majority of them it was poor (57.4% n=89). Fair videos constituted 31.7% (n=49) of the videos. There was no relation between the trustworthiness of the videos' contents and either their viewings or ratings (p=0.561, p=0.0966, respectively). Videos uploaded by health professionals were more reliable than those uploaded by laypersons (p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that although some videos, especially those uploaded by healthcare professionals, are useful; the majority of them have misleading information. Therefore, they are not a reliable source of PE information for patients. It is incumbent on urologists to counsel patients for other available useful internet information sources on PE.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search for "premature ejaculation" (PE) was performed on You Tube in August 2018. Two senior urologist viewers watched and categorized each video for their sources, suggestions and information contents (excellent, fair or poor).
RESULTS: Of the three hundred videos viewed on You Tube, 155 videos were included and analyzed. Mean video length (mean±standard deviation) was 3.08±2.02min. The information content was excellent only in 17 (10.9%) of all videos while for a majority of them it was poor (57.4% n=89). Fair videos constituted 31.7% (n=49) of the videos. There was no relation between the trustworthiness of the videos' contents and either their viewings or ratings (p=0.561, p=0.0966, respectively). Videos uploaded by health professionals were more reliable than those uploaded by laypersons (p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that although some videos, especially those uploaded by healthcare professionals, are useful; the majority of them have misleading information. Therefore, they are not a reliable source of PE information for patients. It is incumbent on urologists to counsel patients for other available useful internet information sources on PE.