ArticleInternational ophthalmology2024
Dacryocystorhinostomy videos on YouTube as a source of patient education.
Article in International ophthalmology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo determine the quality and reliability of DCR YouTube videos as patient education resources and identify any associated factors predictive of video quality.
methodsA YouTube search was conducted using the terms "Dacryocystorhinostomy, DCR, surgery" on 12th of January 2022, with the first 50 relevant videos selected for inclusion. For each video, the following was collected: video hyperlink, title, total views, months since the video was posted, video length, total likes/dislikes, authorship (i.e. surgeon, patient experience or media companies) and number of comments. The videos were graded independently by a resident, a registrar and an oculoplastic surgeon using three validated scoring systems: the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), DISCERN, and Health on the Net (HON).
resultsThe average number of video views was 22,992, with the mean length being 488.12 s and an average of 18 comments per video. The consensus JAMA, DISCERN and HON scores were 2.1 ± 0.6, 29.1 ± 8.8 and 2.7 ± 1.0, respectively. This indicated that the included videos were of a low quality, however, only DISCERN scores had good interobserver similarity. Videos posted by surgeons were superior to non-surgeons when considering mean JAMA and HON scores. No other factors were associated with the quality of educational content.
conclusionThe quality and reliability of DCR related content for patient education is relatively low. Based on this study's findings, patients should be encouraged to view videos created by surgeons or specialists in preference to other sources on YouTube.
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.