ReviewEJVES vascular forum2024
YouTube as a Source of Patient and Trainee Education in Vascular Surgery: A Systematic Review.
Review in EJVES vascular forum, 2024. 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.
- Evaluating the effectiveness and acceptability of an animated educational tool for diabetic foot care: A randomized controlled trial and mixed-methods study in patients with active, in-remission and high-risk diabetic foot disease.Journal of diabetes investigation · 2026Article
- Article
- YouTube Videos as an Information Source About Aerobic Exercise in Rehabilitation of Lung Cancer.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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Due to its video based approach, YouTube has become a widely accessed educational resource for patients and trainees. This systematic review characterised and evaluated the peer reviewed literature investigating YouTube as a source of patient or trainee education in vascular surgery. Data sources: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Ovid HealthStar from inception until 19 January 2023. All primary studies and conference abstracts evaluating YouTube as a source of vascular surgery education were included. Review methods: Video educational quality was analysed across several factors, including pathology, video audience, and length. Results: Overall, 24 studies were identified examining 3 221 videos with 123.1 hours of content and 37.1 million views. Studies primarily examined YouTube videos on diabetic foot care (7/24, 29%), peripheral arterial disease (3/24, 13%), carotid artery stenosis (3/24, 13%), varicose veins (3/24, 13%), and abdominal aortic aneurysm (2/24, 8%). Video educational quality was analysed using standardised assessment tools, author generated scoring systems, or global author reported assessment of quality. Six studies assessed videos for trainee education, while 18 studies evaluated videos for patient education. Among the 20 studies which reported on the overall quality of educational content, 10/20 studies deemed it poor, and 10/20 studies considered it fair, with 53% of studies noting poor educational quality for videos intended for patients and 40% of studies noting poor educational quality in videos intended for trainees. Poor quality videos had more views than fair quality videos (mean 27 348, 95% CI 15 154-39 543 views Conclusion: The overall educational quality of YouTube videos for vascular surgery patient and trainee education is suboptimal. There is significant heterogeneity in the quality assessment tools used in their evaluation. A standardised approach to online education with a consistent quality assessment tool is required to better support online patient and trainee education in vascular surgery.
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.