Jun Suh Lee1, Ho Seok Seo2, Tae Ho Hong1. 1. Department of Surgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 2. Department of Surgery, Armed Forces Capital Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to analyze the educational quality of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) videos accessible on YouTube, one of the most important sources of internet-based medical information. METHODS: The keyword 'laparoscopic cholecystectomy' was used to search on YouTube and the first 100 videos were analyzed. Among them, 27 videos were excluded and 73 videos were included in the study. An arbitrary score system for video quality, devised from existing LC guidelines, were used to evaluate the quality of the videos. Video demographics were analyzed by the quality and source of the video. Correlation analysis was performed. RESULTS: When analyzed by video quality, 11 (15.1%) were evaluated as 'good', 40 (54.8%) were 'moderate', and 22 (30.1%) were 'poor', and there were no differences in length, views per day, or number of likes, dislikes, and comments. When analyzed by source, 27 (37.0%) were uploaded by primary centers, 20 (27.4%) by secondary centers, 15 (20.5%) by tertiary centers, 5 (6.8%) by academic institutions, and 6 (8.2%) by commercial institutions. The mean score of the tertiary center group (6.0 ± 2.0) was significantly higher than the secondary center group (3.9 ± 1.4, P = 0.001). The video score had no correlation with views per day or number of likes. CONCLUSION: Many LC videos are accessible on YouTube with varying quality. Videos uploaded by tertiary centers showed the highest educational value. This discrepancy in video quality was not recognized by viewers. More videos with higher quality need to be uploaded, and an active filtering process is necessary.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to analyze the educational quality of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) videos accessible on YouTube, one of the most important sources of internet-based medical information. METHODS: The keyword 'laparoscopic cholecystectomy' was used to search on YouTube and the first 100 videos were analyzed. Among them, 27 videos were excluded and 73 videos were included in the study. An arbitrary score system for video quality, devised from existing LC guidelines, were used to evaluate the quality of the videos. Video demographics were analyzed by the quality and source of the video. Correlation analysis was performed. RESULTS: When analyzed by video quality, 11 (15.1%) were evaluated as 'good', 40 (54.8%) were 'moderate', and 22 (30.1%) were 'poor', and there were no differences in length, views per day, or number of likes, dislikes, and comments. When analyzed by source, 27 (37.0%) were uploaded by primary centers, 20 (27.4%) by secondary centers, 15 (20.5%) by tertiary centers, 5 (6.8%) by academic institutions, and 6 (8.2%) by commercial institutions. The mean score of the tertiary center group (6.0 ± 2.0) was significantly higher than the secondary center group (3.9 ± 1.4, P = 0.001). The video score had no correlation with views per day or number of likes. CONCLUSION: Many LC videos are accessible on YouTube with varying quality. Videos uploaded by tertiary centers showed the highest educational value. This discrepancy in video quality was not recognized by viewers. More videos with higher quality need to be uploaded, and an active filtering process is necessary.
Authors: Sharona Ross; Alexander Rosemurgy; Michael Albrink; Edward Choung; Giovanni Dapri; Scott Gallagher; Jonathan Hernandez; Santiago Horgan; William Kelley; Michael Kia; Jeffrey Marks; Jose Martinez; Yoav Mintz; Dmitry Oleynikov; Aurora Pryor; David Rattner; Homero Rivas; Kurt Roberts; Eugene Rubach; Steven Schwaitzberg; Lee Swanstrom; John Sweeney; Erik Wilson; Harry Zemon; Natan Zundel Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-08-31 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: M Eikermann; R Siegel; I Broeders; C Dziri; A Fingerhut; C Gutt; T Jaschinski; A Nassar; A M Paganini; D Pieper; E Targarona; M Schrewe; A Shamiyeh; M Strik; E A M Neugebauer Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-10-06 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Kapil Chalil Madathil; A Joy Rivera-Rodriguez; Joel S Greenstein; Anand K Gramopadhye Journal: Health Informatics J Date: 2014-03-25 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Nanna Jo Borgersen; Mikael Johannes Vuokko Henriksen; Lars Konge; Torben Lykke Sørensen; Ann Sofia Skou Thomsen; Yousif Subhi Journal: Clin Ophthalmol Date: 2016-08-16