ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
Attending guidance advised: educational quality of surgical videos on YouTube.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality and educational value of youtube videos on inguinal hernia surgery: a cross-sectional study.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Article
- A quality assessment of youtube videos for the inclusion of the 10 critical steps of hiatal hernia repair and anti-reflux surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Informational Quality of YouTube Content on Partial Meniscectomy Remains Inadequate.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Robotic ventral rectopexy videos on youtube: reliability of quality and educational value assessment among raters with different degrees of surgical experience.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Article
- Current insights on social media as a tool for the dissemination of research and education in surgery: a narrative review.Surgery today · 2024Review
- For Your Eyes Only? The Use of Surgical Videos in Urological Residency Training: A European-wide Survey.European urology open science · 2024Article
- Adoption of routine surgical video recording: a nationwide freedom of information act request across England and Wales.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
- Use of targeted educational resources to improve robotic bariatric surgery training.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- YouTube as a Source of Patient and Trainee Education in Vascular Surgery: A Systematic Review.EJVES vascular forum · 2024Review
- Generation Learning Differences in Surgery: Why They Exist, Implication, and Future Directions.The Surgical clinics of North America · 2023Review
- Evolution of the digital operating room: the place of video technology in surgery.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionYouTube is the most used platform for case preparation by surgical trainees. Despite its popular use, studies have noted limitations in surgical technique, safety, and vetting of these videos. This study identified the most viewed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) videos on YouTube and analyzed the ability of attendings, residents, and medical students to identify critical portions of the procedure, technique, and limitations of the videos.
methodsAn incognito search was conducted on YouTube using the term "laparoscopic cholecystectomy." Results were screened for length, publication date, and language. The top ten most viewed videos were presented to general surgery attendings, residents, and medical students at a single academic institution. Established rubrics were used for evaluation, including the Critical View of Safety (CVS) for LC, a modified Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS) score, a task-specific checklist, and visual analog scales for case difficulty and operator competence. Educational quality and likelihood of video recommendation for case preparation were evaluated using a Likert scale. Attending assessments were considered the gold standard.
resultsSix attending surgeons achieved excellent internal consistency on CVS, educational quality, and likelihood of recommendation scales, with Cronbach alpha (⍺) of 0.93, 0.92, and 0.92, respectively. ⍺ was ≥ 0.7 in all the other scales measured. Attending evaluations revealed that only one of the ten videos attained all three established CVS criteria. Four videos demonstrated none of the CVS criteria. The mean educational quality (mEQ) was 4.63 on a 10-point scale. The mean likelihood of recommendation (mLoR) for case preparation was 2.3 on a 5-point scale. Senior resident assessments (Postgraduate Year (PGY)4 + , n = 12) aligned with attending surgeons, with no statistically significant differences in CVS attainment, mEQ, and mLoR. Junior residents (PGY1-3, n = 17) and medical students (MS3-4, n = 20) exhibited significant difference with attendings in CVS attainment, mEQ, and mLoR for more than half the videos. Both groups tended to overrate videos compared to attendings.
conclusionYouTube is the most popular unvetted resource used for case presentation by surgical trainees. Attending evaluations revealed that the most viewed LC videos on YouTube did not attain the CVS, and were deemed as inappropriate for case preparation, with low educational value. Senior resident video assessments closely aligned with attendings, while junior trainees were more likely to overstate video quality and value. Attending guidance and direction of trainees to high-quality, vetted resources for surgical case preparation is needed. This may also suggest a need for surgical societies with platforms for video sharing to prioritize the creation and dissemination of high-quality videos on easily accessible public platforms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34668066What 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.