ArticleJournal of the West African College of Surgeons
Reliability and Usefulness of YouTube as a Source of Informative Media for Arthroscopic Tennis Elbow Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Published Videos.
Article in Journal of the West African College of Surgeons. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims and Objectives: Over the last decade, YouTube has been extensively used as a learning tool for both physicians and patients, but the reliability of this information remains questionable. The purpose of this study was to look for the reliability and quality of videos on tennis elbow arthroscopy on YouTube. Materials and Methods: We used three search terms on YouTube "tennis elbow arthroscopic surgery," "Arthroscopic ECRB release," and "Arthroscopic debridement for tennis elbow," and screened the first 50 videos according to popularity. The videos were included from 2009 to date. Only videos in the English language were included. Repeated videos and videos without sound were excluded. A total of 74 videos were selected for this study and reliability was checked with DISCERN and journal of the American medical association (JAMA) scores. The quality was assessed with the Global Quality Score Criteria (GQSC) score and TEARS (a novel score). Popularity was tested with the video power index (VPI). A pilot study was conducted using 20 videos to validate the TEARS score. Results: In the pilot study, TEARS showed results in accordance with other scores used. The average number of views was 41,644.97, and the average duration was 5.03 ± 3.39 years. The mean value of DISCERN and JAMA was found to be 21.47 ± 6.28 and 1.05 ± 0.92, respectively. GQSC, TEARS, and VPI were found to be 1.70 ± 0.82, 4.17 ± 2.62, and 769,936.9 ± 6,538,851.37. Conclusion: Most of the videos were educational and physicians were targeted. The USA was the major contributor to such videos. The reliability and quality of these videos were found to be of poor quality. The video popularity was however found to be relatively high. The inter-observer reliability was good. Based on the findings, we conclude that the videos are not reliable and could not be used for learning.
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.