Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2022
Quality and Reliability of YouTube Videos on Uterine Fibroid Embolization.
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.
Gad Bishoy, Shanmugasundaram Srinidhi, Kumar Abhishek, Shukla Pratik
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the quality of information available in YouTube videos on the treatment of uterine fibroids.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The DISCERN Scale Criterion was used to quantify the quality of YouTube videos on uterine fibroid embolization. The Video Power Index was used to quantify the popularity of videos on uterine fibroid embolization.
RESULTS: Among the 31 videos identified in the study, the average total DISCERN score was 48.82 ± 14.48, indicative of average to poor quality. There was no correlation between a video's popularity and its quality. Popularity, as measured by Video Power Index, was not significantly different between videos containing a board-certified physician and those that did not. Videos with a board-certified interventional radiologist had a significantly lower Video Power Index than those without a board-certified physician.
CONCLUSION: YouTube is not currently a high-quality source of information for uterine fibroid treatment options. Physicians should be aware of highly viewed material on YouTube to have informed discussions with patients about their treatment options and address misperceptions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The DISCERN Scale Criterion was used to quantify the quality of YouTube videos on uterine fibroid embolization. The Video Power Index was used to quantify the popularity of videos on uterine fibroid embolization.
RESULTS: Among the 31 videos identified in the study, the average total DISCERN score was 48.82 ± 14.48, indicative of average to poor quality. There was no correlation between a video's popularity and its quality. Popularity, as measured by Video Power Index, was not significantly different between videos containing a board-certified physician and those that did not. Videos with a board-certified interventional radiologist had a significantly lower Video Power Index than those without a board-certified physician.
CONCLUSION: YouTube is not currently a high-quality source of information for uterine fibroid treatment options. Physicians should be aware of highly viewed material on YouTube to have informed discussions with patients about their treatment options and address misperceptions.