ArticleJournal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association2024
Laparoscopic myomectomy videos on WebSurg and YouTube: does peer review process make a difference?
Article in Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Educational quality of laparoscopic hysterectomy videos for advanced endometriosis: institutional archives versus YouTube and MedTube.BMC medical education · 2026Observational
- Development of an evaluation framework for robotic total mesorectal excision videos: a review and comparison of medical professional and public video resources.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Review
- Are YouTube videos on treatments for temporomandibular disorders reliable?: An observational study.Medicine · 2025Observational
- Impact of 3D high-definition laparoscopy on total laparoscopic hysterectomy: a body mass index-stratified retrospective analysis.Annals of Saudi medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the quality of laparoscopic myomectomy videos on YouTube and WebSurg. Material and Methods: We searched using the keyword "laparoscopic myomectomy" on WebSurg and selected surgical interventions in the gynecology section. Eleven videos on WebSurg were enrolled. We selected the 22 most-relevant videos on YouTube to create a comparison group, with a ratio of 1:2. Sound in videos, number of subscribers, views, likes, and comments, number of days since videos were uploaded and durations of videos were recorded. View/day, like/view, like/subscriber, and view/subscriber ratios were calculated. The videos were evaluated with usefulness score (US), global quality scoring (GQS), modified discern score (mDS) and laparoscopic surgery video educational guidelines (LAP-VEGaS). Results: The view/day ratio was lower in WebSurg compared to YouTube [1.3 (1.9) vs. 7.5 (30.6), respectively; p=0.039]. No difference was found between WebSurg and YouTube in terms of US, GQS and mDS. On LAP-VEGaS assessment, WebSurg was found to be superior to YouTube in terms of intraoperative findings [2 (1-2) vs. 1 (0-2), p=0.001], additional materials [1 (0-2) vs. 1 (0-1), p=0.041], audio/written commentary [2 (2-2) vs. 2 (0-2), p=0.037], image quality [2 (2-2) vs. 2 (0-2), p=0.023], questions and total score [12 (11-13) vs. 10.5 (4-13), p=0.006]. The proportion of high-quality video was higher in WebSurg compared to YouTube, when the cut-off value of total score of 11 or 12 was used as 10 (100%) vs. 10 (50%), p=0.011 and 9 (90%) vs. 5 (25%), p=0.001, respectively. Conclusion: WebSurg was better compared to YouTube in terms of quality of laparoscopic myomectomy 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.