ArticleCureus2024
Neurological Examination: An Evaluation of Video-Based Learning.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective This study aimed to systematically review and assess educational YouTube videos on neurological examination. Methods YouTube was screened for educational videos on neurological examination. A scoring system (involving five major and six minor criteria) was used to assess videos. Educationally useful videos were defined as those satisfying all major criteria and at least three minor criteria; 2 points were allocated for each major criterion and 1 point for each minor criterion, thereby using a score of 13 as a threshold. Results A total of 500 videos were screened, and 128 videos were included in the final selection procedure. Only 55 videos were deemed as educationally useful; 13 of these videos focused on the general neurological examination, 10 on cranial nerves, 11 on the upper limb, five on the lower limb, three on reflexes, one on upper and lower limbs, one on gait, and 11 were in the form of lectures. Six (46.15%) of the educationally useful videos about general neurological exams, including the top three videos, were created by academic institutions, and three (23.07%) were book-related. Educationally useful videos were not the most viewed videos. None of the analyzed videos included the evaluation of the autonomic nervous system in the physical examination routine. Conclusions YouTube is an increasingly common source of educational videos for medical students. However, videos found on YouTube are not peer-reviewed and may be inaccurate, and the preponderance of videos available on the platform makes it difficult for students and educators to find good educational material. We provide a list of URLs of educationally useful videos for students and educators in neurology and offer suggestions for the creation of high-quality educational videos.
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.