ArticleInternational journal of retina and vitreous2022
Evaluation of quality and utility of YouTube vitreoretinal surgical videos.
Article in International journal of retina and vitreous, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Learning Outcomes and Educational Effectiveness of Social Media as a Continuing Professional Development Intervention for Practicing Surgeons: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2024Review
- Review
- Quality Assessment of YouTube Videos on Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) for Cancer Using a Newly Developed Tool.Integrative cancer therapiesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe evaluated the utility and quality of surgical videos posted on the main retinal YouTube channels by surgeons at different career stages and assessed how well the steps of the vitrectomy videos conformed to the parameters in the Casey Eye Institute Vitrectomy Indices Tool for Skills assessment (CEIVITS) scale.
methodsForty-five videos were included from nine retinal YouTube channels posted from 2011 to 2021. For each surgeon, 10 videos were randomized and the utility, quality, and educational content were assessed. For each video, the surgeons also assessed how the validated CEIVITS items were presented in the videos. The surgeons were divided based on years of experience: fellows (0-3 years), young surgeons (4-10 years), and senior surgeons (more than 10 years).
resultsThe video image quality was rated as good in 63.52% of evaluations, moderate in 30.37%, and poor in 6.11%. The quality assessment of the videos among the groups did not differ. The fellows rated the use of the videos as educational tools higher (3.99) than the young (3.87) and senior surgeons (3.47) (p < 0.0002, Kruskal-Wallis test); 34.76% of the fellows reported learning something new from the videos compared with 19.17% of the senior surgeons (p < 0.05). The CEIVITS scale item that was seen more frequently was related to core vitrectomies (72.29%) and the least represented was about checking infusion lines (80.17%).
conclusionsVitreoretinal surgical videos are useful educational tools during all stages of surgeons' careers, and the evaluation of the quality of the images did not differ significantly among the groups, however, surgeons with expertise shorter than 10 years report significantly greater use of videos than experienced surgeons. Videos posted to the public domain on different social media, most often YouTube, are widespread and unregulated for providing complimentary surgical education. Retinal societies should formulate guidelines and improve the educational value of the surgical videos posted on the Internet. Trial Registration The Federal University of São Paulo institution's Research Ethics Committee reviewed and approved this study protocol (Approval Number, 4.726.589).
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.