ArticleKardiochirurgia i torakochirurgia polska = Polish journal of cardio-thoracic surgery2021
Evaluation of pericardiocentesis videos on YouTube as a reliable source for on-line education in the COVID-19 period.
Article in Kardiochirurgia i torakochirurgia polska = Polish journal of cardio-thoracic surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPericardiocentesis is an invasive procedure performed to drain fluid from the pericardial cavity.
aimWe investigated the quality of videos about pericardiocentesis on YouTube and analysed their reliability and teaching properties, in the covid 19 period when online education has come to the fore. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe searched YouTube using the terms "pericardiocentesis, cardiac tamponade, pericardial effusion, pericardial effusion drainage, pericardial tamponade" for uploaded videos. We scored every video according to the questions we prepared using the guidelines about pericardiocentesis. We used the HONcode score, GQS score, and RELIABILITY score to assess the quality of videos. Two physicians independently and blindly classified videos as useful or misleading and rated them.
resultsA total of 168 videos were examined. After the application of exclusion criteria, 38 videos were evaluated. The pericardiocentesis checklist average score was 10.45 ±2.56. According to sources of videos, the average score for university or research hospital videos was 13.1 ±1.5, and videos whose source could not be identified had an average score of 7.5 ±2.0. According to the level of HONcode, 17 (44.7%) videos were low quality; according to GQS score, 8 (21.1%) videos were poor quality. The quality of university hospital uploads (β-coefficient 3.960,
conclusionsThe educational value of pericardiocentesis videos on YouTube are low. It is recommended that doctors and patients be aware of and adopt the developing technology, and they should prefer videos uploaded from university hospitals and educational hospitals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.