ArticleJournal of medical education and curricular development
"YouTube" for Surgical Training and Education in Donor Nephrectomy: Friend or Foe?
Article in Journal of medical education and curricular development. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Educational quality of YouTube videos on robot-assisted thymectomy: a LAP-VEGaS-based evaluation.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Educational quality of YouTube videos on video assisted thoracoscopic segmentectomy.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Is YouTube™ a Reliable Source of Information for the Current Use of HIPEC in the Treatment of Ovarian Cancer?Cancers · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the shift toward e-learning and online education in surgical training. With the increasing prevalence of end-stage chronic kidney disease, kidney transplantation is in high demand. Donor safety is crucial in nephrectomy procedures, highlighting the importance of effective training. This study evaluates the quality and effectiveness of YouTube videos focusing on laparoscopic and robotic donor nephrectomy for surgical education. Methods: On October 24, 2023, searches on YouTube for "laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy" and "robotic live donor nephrectomy" returned 121 videos, with 63 included in the study. Popularity was evaluated using the Video Power Index (VPI), while reliability and quality were assessed using the LAP-VEGaS Video Assessment Tool and Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria. Additionally, a structured descriptive tool called the "Live Donor Nephrectomy Completeness (LDNC)" was created to evaluate the completeness and educational value of procedural technical steps. Results: Out of 63 videos reviewed, laparoscopic surgical procedures were depicted in 71.4% of them, while robotic approaches were shown in 28.6%. Academic backgrounds were associated with 54% of the videos, and individual physician backgrounds with 46%. Mean scores were LAP-VEGaS 9.79 ± 3.87, VPI 6.32 ± 3.31, and LDNC 9.68 ± 1.97. JAMA scores varied, with 34.9% receiving 1 point, 34.9% receiving 2 points, 17.5% receiving 3 points, and 12.7% receiving 4 points. Academic videos scored significantly higher in LAP-VEGaS and LDNC (all Conclusion: Amidst the challenges posed by the pandemic on surgical education, YouTube has emerged as a valuable resource for learning about laparoscopic and robotic donor nephrectomy for living kidney donation. However, the quality and reliability of these videos vary greatly, and many lack thorough reviews, leading to incomplete information. To enhance their educational value, it's proposed that videos undergo professional evaluation before publication and adhere to standardized, structured, and validated scoring systems, ensuring logical structure and improved quality.
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.