| Literature DB >> 36046306 |
Kevin Tang1, Umair Azhar1, Mustufa Babar1, Atif Ahmed2, Aaron Oh1, Wesley Day1, Hussein Harb3, Ferdinand J Chan4.
Abstract
Introduction YouTube is the most popular video-based source of information on the Internet. It is accessed by over 1 billion users, which approximates to almost one-third of all Internet users. Orthopaedic video content published on YouTube is not screened and does not go through an editorial process, and most videos do not have information about authorship or appropriate references. Users who do not have the knowledge to assess the accuracy and reliability of the source may be misinformed about their medical condition. Previous studies have evaluated the quality of YouTube content for information in orthopaedics such as meniscus,kyphosis, and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), but the quality of frozen shoulder videos on YouTube has not been investigated. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the quality and educational value of YouTube videos concerning adhesive capsulitis. Methods A YouTube search was performed using the term "frozen shoulder." Videos were excluded if they had no audio, were in a language other than English, or were longer than 10 minutes. A total of 70 videos were screened, and the first 50 videos that met the inclusion criteria were evaluated by three observers. Six video characteristics were extracted, and videos were categorized by source and content. Quality and educational value were assessed using the DISCERN (score range, 0-5), Global Quality score (GQS; score range, 0-4), and a Frozen Shoulder-Specific Score (FSSS; score range, 0-16). Results The mean video duration was 242.46 ± 164.32 seconds. The mean number of views was 137,494 ± 262,756 and the total view count across 50 videos was 6,874,706. The mean DISCERN, GQS, and FSSS scores were 2.72 ± 0.85, 2.37 ± 0.895, and 4.42 ± 3.15, respectively. The video sources were primarily from non-physician healthcare professionals (32%), and most of the video content was focused on disease-specific information (50%). Significant between-group effects were observed for the DISCERN score and video source (P = .005), with videos from academic sources having the highest mean DISCERN score. DISCERN scores also differed significantly based on video content (P = .007), with disease content having the highest DISCERN score. Both GQS and FSSS scores differed significantly based on video content (both P < .001) but did not differ significantly based on the video source. Conclusions Information about frozen shoulder on YouTube is low quality and has limited educational value. Thus, providers for orthopaedic conditions should warn their patients and provide better alternatives for education.Entities:
Keywords: adhesive capsulitis; frozen shoulder; patient education; quality; social media; videos; youtube
Year: 2022 PMID: 36046306 PMCID: PMC9419844 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.27406
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cureus ISSN: 2168-8184
Figure 1Video Inclusion Flow
DISCERN Criteria
| Reliability of information (1 point for every Yes, 0 points for No) |
| Are the aims clear and achieved? |
| Are reliable sources of information used? (i.e., publication cited, speaker is board-certified physician) |
| Is the information presented balanced and unbiased? |
| Are additional sources of information listed for patient reference? |
| Are areas of uncertainty mentioned? |
GQS Criteria
GQS: Global Quality Score
| Grade | Description of quality |
| 1 | Poor quality and unlikely to be of use for patient education |
| 2 | Poor quality and of limited use to patients because some information is present |
| 3 | Suboptimal quality and flow; somewhat useful to patients; important topics are missing; some information is present |
| 4 | Good quality and flow; useful to patients because most important topics are covered |
| 5 | Excellent quality and flow; highly useful to patients |
FSSS Criteria for Video Content
FSSS: Frozen Shoulder-Specific score; MRI: magnetic resonance imaging; PT: physical therapy; NSAIDs: non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
| Patient presentation |
| Describes symptoms |
| Describes patient population |
| Information about frozen shoulder |
| Describes anatomy and/or function of the shoulder |
| Describes frozen shoulder pathophysiology |
| Describes mechanism of injury |
| Diagnosis and evaluation |
| Describes physical examination and findings |
| Mentions that external rotation deficit is most common |
| Discusses that X-rays needed to evaluate for osteoarthritis, dislocation, or surgical hardware |
| Discusses that MRI is not necessary for diagnosis but can evaluate for other pathology |
| Treatment |
| Discusses conservative treatment (PT, NSAIDS, and intra-articular steroid injections) as first line treatments for 3-6 months |
| Mentions diagnostic arthroscopy and other pathologies that can be addressed concomitantly (rotator cuff tears, biceps pathologies, etc.) |
| Describes manipulation under anesthesia and arthroscopic lysis of adhesions |
| Postoperative course |
| Describes complications and outcomes |
| Mentions the need for physical therapy after operation |
| Outlines return-to-function timeline |
Mean DISCERN, GQS, and FSSS Scores Based on Video Content and Video Source Categories
NOTE: Data are presented as mean (SD). For video content, between group effects showed P = .001 for DISCERN and P < .001 for both GQS and FSSS. For video source, between group effects showed P = .0054 for the DISCERN score, P = .05 for GQS, and P = .09 for FSSS.
GQS: Global Quality Score; FSSS: Frozen Shoulder-Specific Score.
| Group variable | N (%) | DISCERN | GQS | FSSS |
| Video content | ||||
| Patient experience | 5 (10) | 1.93 (1.04) | 2.13 (0.77) | 4.27 (2.58) |
| Non-surgical management | 20 (40) | 2.43 (0.59) | 1.73 (0.53) | 1.93 (1.61) |
| Disease-specific information | 25 (50) | 3.12 (0.81) | 2.94 (0.79) | 6.44 (2.78) |
| Video source | ||||
| Academic | 3 (6) | 3.78 (0.69) | 3.22 (1.02) | 7.22 (3.91) |
| Commercial | 1 (2) | 4.33 (0) | 2.50 (0) | 5.67 (0) |
| Medical | 12 (24) | 2.36 (0.36) | 2.22 (0.69) | 3.47 (2.59) |
| Non-physician healthcare professional | 16 (32) | 2.48 (0.82) | 1.88 (0.77) | 2.90 (2.42) |
| Patient | 2 (4) | 1.83 (1.18) | 2.17 (0.71) | 4.83 (3.06) |
| Physician | 15 (30) | 3.16 (0.74) | 2.91 (0.91) | 6.16 (3.45) |
| Trainer | 1 (2) | 1.67 (0) | 2.00 (0) | 3.67 (0) |
| Total | 50 (100) | 2.73 (0.85) | 2.38 (0.90) | 4.42 (3.15) |