ArticleClinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology2024
Development and Validation of a New Tool for Evaluating Educational Videos Discussing Skin Surgical Procedure Techniques.
Article in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The available tools for evaluating scientific content target written scientific evidence and referencing without considering surgical, technical, or video graphic aspects. Objective: This study developed and validated a tool for qualitatively evaluating videos in the field of skin surgery. This will increase the quality of recorded surgical materials published online and ultimately enhance the reliability of streaming platforms as educational resources. Methodology: Tool development included several stages: draft generation, expert panel setting, internal reliability testing, and pilot study. Results: After two rounds of expert panels evaluating the developed tool, 23 relevant items evaluating the educational value, scientific accuracy, and clarity of the surgical technical steps of the videos were obtained. We applied the tool to the top 25 YouTube videos discussing elliptical excision. Internal consistency, reliability, and substantial agreement between the raters were identified. We identified a strong positive correlation between our tool score and the global rating score (r= 0.55, P= 0.004). Conclusion: It is critical to avoid relying on any video for educational purposes. The tool generated and validated in our study can determine a video's value. A pilot study of 25 YouTube videos demonstrated that the available videos are of fair-good quality, thus necessitating the need for high-quality video production.
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.