Manolis Pratsinis1, Dominik Abt1, Gautier Müllhaupt1, Janine Langenauer1, Thomas Knoll2, Hans-Peter Schmid1, Valentin Zumstein1, Patrick Betschart3. 1. Department of Urology, Cantonal Hospital St Gallen, Rorschacherstrasse 95, 9007, St. Gallen, Switzerland. 2. Department of Urology, Sindelfingen-Böblingen Medical Centre, University of Tübingen, Sindelfingen, Germany. 3. Department of Urology, Cantonal Hospital St Gallen, Rorschacherstrasse 95, 9007, St. Gallen, Switzerland. patrick.betschart@kssg.ch.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To systematically assess the quality of videos on the surgical treatment of urinary stones available on YouTube using validated instruments. METHODS: A systematic search for videos on YouTube addressing treatment options of urinary stones was performed in October 2019. Assessed parameters included basic data (e.g. number of views), the grade of misinformation reporting of conflicts of interest. Quality of content was analyzed using the validated DISCERN questionnaire. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 100 videos with a median of 26,234 views (1020-1,720,521) were included in the analysis. Of these, only 26 videos were rated to contain no misinformation and only nine disclosed potential conflicts of interest. Overall, the median quality of the videos was low (2 out of 5 points for DISCERN question 16). Videos uploaded by healthcare professionals and medical societies/organizations offered significantly higher levels of quality. In particular, the videos provided by the EAU achieved the highest rating with a median score of 3.0. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of videos concerning the surgical treatment of urinary stones have a low quality of content, are potentially subject to commercial bias and do not report on conflicts of interest. Videos provided by medical societies, such as the EAU, provide a higher level of quality. This highlights the importance of active recommendation of evidence-based patient education materials.
PURPOSE: To systematically assess the quality of videos on the surgical treatment of urinary stones available on YouTube using validated instruments. METHODS: A systematic search for videos on YouTube addressing treatment options of urinary stones was performed in October 2019. Assessed parameters included basic data (e.g. number of views), the grade of misinformation reporting of conflicts of interest. Quality of content was analyzed using the validated DISCERN questionnaire. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 100 videos with a median of 26,234 views (1020-1,720,521) were included in the analysis. Of these, only 26 videos were rated to contain no misinformation and only nine disclosed potential conflicts of interest. Overall, the median quality of the videos was low (2 out of 5 points for DISCERN question 16). Videos uploaded by healthcare professionals and medical societies/organizations offered significantly higher levels of quality. In particular, the videos provided by the EAU achieved the highest rating with a median score of 3.0. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of videos concerning the surgical treatment of urinary stones have a low quality of content, are potentially subject to commercial bias and do not report on conflicts of interest. Videos provided by medical societies, such as the EAU, provide a higher level of quality. This highlights the importance of active recommendation of evidence-based patient education materials.
Entities:
Keywords:
Kidney stone; Patient information; Social media; Ureter stone; YouTube
Authors: Patrick Betschart; Valentin Zumstein; Patrice Jichlinski; Thomas R W Herrmann; Thomas Knoll; Daniel Stephan Engeler; Gautier Müllhaupt; Hans-Peter Schmid; Dominik Abt Journal: Urol Int Date: 2019-09-10 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Dean Assimos; Amy Krambeck; Nicole L Miller; Manoj Monga; M Hassan Murad; Caleb P Nelson; Kenneth T Pace; Vernon M Pais; Margaret S Pearle; Glenn M Preminger; Hassan Razvi; Ojas Shah; Brian R Matlaga Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-05-27 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Craig Hansen; Julia D Interrante; Elizabeth C Ailes; Meghan T Frey; Cheryl S Broussard; Valerie J Godoshian; Courtney Lewis; Kara N D Polen; Amanda P Garcia; Suzanne M Gilboa Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2015-11-05 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Glyn Elwyn; Dominick Frosch; Richard Thomson; Natalie Joseph-Williams; Amy Lloyd; Paul Kinnersley; Emma Cording; Dave Tomson; Carole Dodd; Stephen Rollnick; Adrian Edwards; Michael Barry Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-05-23 Impact factor: 5.128