ArticleCureus2024
Choosing the Correct Guide Video on Central Venous Catheter Placement From YouTube.
Article in Cureus, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective Proper preparation is necessary before performing certain procedures on a patient. Recently, videos created using social media content have been used as a preparation method. This has become particularly important in medical education since the COVID-19 pandemic. Central venous catheter placement is an important procedure performed in critically ill patients. This study assessed the quality of videos about central venous catheter placement available on YouTube. Methods A search was conducted on YouTube with the keyword "central venous catheter placement" on June 1, 2024. The review process involved two independent medical experts who comprehensively assessed the relevance and content of each video. To assess the quality of the videos, the DISCERN score, mDISCERN score, Global Quality Score (GQS), and American Medical Association Journal (JAMA) rating scale were used as evaluation tools. Results Top 41 English-language videos deemed most relevant were evaluated, each with over 25,000 views. Analysis of the video sources revealed that 36.6% of the videos were uploaded by doctors. Moreover, 87.8% of the videos were audio narrations accompanied by real patients or mannequins, and the remaining videos comprised audio narration with animated images. The mean JAMA score of the videos was 1.73, the mean mDISCERN score was 2.66, the mean DISCERN score was 40.46, and the mean GQS score was 3.8. A statistically significant difference was observed between the mDISCERN scores of videos containing real visual content and those containing animated visual content (p = 0.038). Moreover, the same two groups also exhibited higher quality scores in the GQS (p = 0.029). Conclusion The quality of information related to central venous catheter placement on YouTube is highly variable. Specifically, videos that provide valuable information and those that have the potential to mislead viewers do not have a noticeable difference in terms of views and popularity. For a medical practitioner or physician seeking reliable information, a useful and safe approach is preferring videos uploaded by medical professionals. It is important to prioritize the professional identity of the content creator rather than the video's popularity or the number of comments it has received.
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.