Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34567805›Full record

ArticleMinimally invasive surgery2021

Quality of YouTube Videos on Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for Patient Education.

Joseph N Hewitt, Joshua G Kovoor, Christopher D Ovenden, Gayatri P Asokan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Minimally invasive surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Joseph N HewittUniversity of Adelaide, Discipline of Surgery, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2959-4554
Joshua G KovoorUniversity of Adelaide, Discipline of Surgery, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3880-3840
Christopher D OvendenUniversity of Adelaide, Discipline of Surgery, Women's and Children's Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8075-7852
Gayatri P AsokanUniversity of Adelaide, Discipline of Surgery, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1233-7017

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSurgical patients frequently seek information from digital sources, particularly before common operations such as laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). YouTube provides a large amount of free educational content; however, it lacks regulation or peer review. To inform patient education, we evaluated the quality of YouTube videos on LC.

methodsWe searched YouTube with the phrase "laparoscopic cholecystectomy." Two authors independently rated quality of the first 50 videos retrieved using the JAMA, Health on the Net (HON), and DISCERN scoring systems. Data collected for each video included total views, time since upload, video length, total comments, and percentage positivity (proportion of likes relative to total likes plus dislikes). Interobserver reliability was assessed using an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Association between quality and video characteristics was tested.

resultsMean video quality scores were poor, scoring 1.9/4 for JAMA, 2.0/5.0 for DISCERN, and 4.9/8.0 for HON. There was good interobserver reliability with an ICC of 0.78, 0.81, and 0.74, respectively. Median number of views was 21,789 (IQR 3000-61,690). Videos were mostly published by private corporations. No video characteristic demonstrated significant association with video quality.

conclusionYouTube videos for LC are of low quality and insufficient for patient education. Treating surgeons should advise of the website's limitations and direct patients to trusted sources of information.

Identifiers

PMID34567805
PMCPMC8460373

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.