Elisa L Zwerus1,2, Rik J Molenaars1,3, Michel P J van den Bekerom4, Bertram The5, Denise Eygendaal1,5. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, ocation AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Zuyderland MC, Sittard-Geleen, The Netherlands. 3. Harvard Medical School at Massachusetts General Hospital, Sports Medicine Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 4. Shoulder and lbow nit, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, OLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medical students and residents rely increasingly on web-based education. Online videos provide unique opportunities to share knowledge. The objective of this study was to investigate the accuracy and quality of instructional videos on the physical examination of the elbow and identify factors influencing educational usefulness. METHODS: On October 7, 2018, a search on YouTube, VuMedi, Orthobullets, and G9MD was performed. Videos were rated for accuracy and quality by two independent authors using a modified version of a validated scoring system for the nervous and cardiopulmonary system. Inter-rater reliability was analysed. RESULTS: The 126 included videos were uploaded between June 2007 and February 2018. Twenty-three videos were indicated as useful for educational purposes. Accuracy, quality and overall scores were significantly higher for videos from specialized platforms (VuMedi, Orthobullets, G6MD) compared to YouTube. Video accuracy and quality varied widely and were not correlated. Number of days online, views, and likes showed no or weak correlation with accuracy and quality. For the overall score, our assessment tool showed excellent inter-rater reliability. CONCLUSION: There is considerable variation in accuracy and quality of currently available online videos on the physical examination of the elbow. We identified 23 educationally useful videos and provided an assessment method for the quality of educational videos. In educational settings, this method may help students to assess video reliability and aid educators in the development of high-quality instructional online content.
BACKGROUND: Medical students and residents rely increasingly on web-based education. Online videos provide unique opportunities to share knowledge. The objective of this study was to investigate the accuracy and quality of instructional videos on the physical examination of the elbow and identify factors influencing educational usefulness. METHODS: On October 7, 2018, a search on YouTube, VuMedi, Orthobullets, and G9MD was performed. Videos were rated for accuracy and quality by two independent authors using a modified version of a validated scoring system for the nervous and cardiopulmonary system. Inter-rater reliability was analysed. RESULTS: The 126 included videos were uploaded between June 2007 and February 2018. Twenty-three videos were indicated as useful for educational purposes. Accuracy, quality and overall scores were significantly higher for videos from specialized platforms (VuMedi, Orthobullets, G6MD) compared to YouTube. Video accuracy and quality varied widely and were not correlated. Number of days online, views, and likes showed no or weak correlation with accuracy and quality. For the overall score, our assessment tool showed excellent inter-rater reliability. CONCLUSION: There is considerable variation in accuracy and quality of currently available online videos on the physical examination of the elbow. We identified 23 educationally useful videos and provided an assessment method for the quality of educational videos. In educational settings, this method may help students to assess video reliability and aid educators in the development of high-quality instructional online content.
Authors: Ariane F Cardoso; Lucimara Moreli; Fernanda T M M Braga; Christiane I Vasques; Claudia B Santos; Emilia C Carvalho Journal: Nurse Educ Today Date: 2011-10-27 Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: Valerio Celentano; Neil Smart; John McGrath; Ronan A Cahill; Antonino Spinelli; Andreas Obermair; Hirotoshi Hasegawa; Pawanindra Lal; Alex M Almoudaris; Charlotte R Hitchins; Gianluca Pellino; Matthew G Browning; Takashi Ishida; Federico Luvisetto; Pinar Cingiloglu; Katherine Gash; Rhiannon Harries; Deena Harji; Francesca Di Candido; Elisa Cassinotti; Frank D McDermott; James E A Berry; Nick J Battersby; Esther Platt; Nicholas J Campain; Barrie D Keeler; Luigi Boni; Sharmila Gupta; John P Griffith; Austin G Acheson; Tom D Cecil; Mark G Coleman Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Elisa L Zwerus; Matthijs P Somford; François Maissan; Jelle Heisen; Denise Eygendaal; Michel Pj van den Bekerom Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Karl Kingsley; Gillian M Galbraith; Matthew Herring; Eva Stowers; Tanis Stewart; Karla V Kingsley Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2011-04-25 Impact factor: 2.463