Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38902576›Full record

SynthesisCanadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie2024

YouTube as a source of education in perioperative anesthesia for patients and trainees: a systematic review.

Matthew W Nelms, Arshia Javidan, Ki Jinn Chin, Muralie Vignarajah, Fangwen Zhou, Chenchen Tian, Yung Lee, Ahmed Kayssi, Faysal Naji, Mandeep Singh

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Matthew W Nelms *Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Arshia Javidan *Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Ki Jinn ChinDepartment of Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Muralie VignarajahDepartment of Surgery, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Fangwen ZhouFaculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Chenchen TianDepartment of Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Yung LeeDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Ahmed KayssiDivision of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Faysal NajiDivision of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Mandeep SinghDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Toronto, 399 Bathurst St, Toronto, ON, M5T 2S6, Canada. mandeep.singh@uhn.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-3393-8586

Funding

Non-US Government Research Support
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOnline video sharing platforms like YouTube (Google LLC, San Bruno, CA, USA) have become a substantial source of health information. We sought to conduct a systematic review of studies assessing the overall quality of perioperative anesthesia videos on YouTube.

methodsWe searched Embase, MEDLINE, and Ovid for articles published from database inception to 1 May 2023. We included primary studies evaluating YouTube videos as a source of information regarding perioperative anesthesia. We excluded studies not published in English and studies assessing acute or chronic pain. Studies were screened and data were extracted in duplicate by two reviewers. We appraised the quality of studies according to the social media framework published in the literature. We used descriptive statistics to report the results using mean, standard deviation, range, and n/total N (%).

resultsAmong 8,908 citations, we identified 14 studies that examined 796 videos with 59.7 hr of content and 47.5 million views. Among the 14 studies that evaluated the video content quality, 17 different quality assessment tools were used, only three of which were externally validated (Global Quality Score, modified DISCERN score, and JAMA score). Per global assessment rating of video quality, 11/13 (85%) studies concluded the overall video quality as poor.

conclusionsOverall, the educational content quality of YouTube videos evaluated in the literature accessible as an educational resource regarding perioperative anesthesia was poor. While these videos are in demand, their impact on patient and trainee education remains unclear. A standardized methodology for evaluating online videos is merited to improve future reporting. A peer-reviewed approach to online open-access videos is needed to support patient and trainee education in anesthesia. STUDY REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/ajse9 ); first posted, 1 May 2023.

Indexed as

AnesthesiologySocial MediaVideo RecordingAnesthesiaHumansInformation DisseminationPatient Education as TopicPerioperative Careanesthesiaeducationsystematic reviewvideosYouTube

Identifiers

PMID38902576

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.