Durgapoorna Menon1, Prameela G Chelakkot2, Devika Sunil2, Ashwini Lakshmaiah2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala, India. durgapoorna@gmail.com. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala, India.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to assess the quality of videos available in YouTube on CyberKnife. METHODS: The term "CyberKnife" was input into the search window of www.youtube.com on a specific date and the first 50 videos were assessed for technical and content issues. The data was tabulated and analysed. RESULTS: The search yielded 32,300 videos in 0.33 s. Among the first 50 analysed, most were professional videos, mostly on CyberKnife in general and for brain tumours. Most of the videos did not mention anything about patient selection or lesion size. The other technical details were covered by most although they seemed muffled by the animations. Many patient videos were recordings of one entire treatment, thus giving future patients an insight on what to expect. Almost half the videos projected glorified views about the treatment technique. CONCLUSIONS: The company videos were reasonably accurate and well presented as were many institutional videos, although there was a tendency to gloss over a few points. The glorification of the treatment technique was a disturbing finding. The profound trust of the patients on the health care system is humbling.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to assess the quality of videos available in YouTube on CyberKnife. METHODS: The term "CyberKnife" was input into the search window of www.youtube.com on a specific date and the first 50 videos were assessed for technical and content issues. The data was tabulated and analysed. RESULTS: The search yielded 32,300 videos in 0.33 s. Among the first 50 analysed, most were professional videos, mostly on CyberKnife in general and for brain tumours. Most of the videos did not mention anything about patient selection or lesion size. The other technical details were covered by most although they seemed muffled by the animations. Many patient videos were recordings of one entire treatment, thus giving future patients an insight on what to expect. Almost half the videos projected glorified views about the treatment technique. CONCLUSIONS: The company videos were reasonably accurate and well presented as were many institutional videos, although there was a tendency to gloss over a few points. The glorification of the treatment technique was a disturbing finding. The profound trust of the patients on the health care system is humbling.
Entities:
Keywords:
CyberKnife; Health information; Internet; YouTube