ArticleColorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland2025
Should online, free proctology videos be used for self-directed post-graduate learning? A proposed evaluation using a colorectal video assessment framework.
Article in Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Should online, free proctology videos be used for self-directed post-graduate learning? A proposed evaluation using a colorectal video assessment framework.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionExposure to proctology during post-graduate colorectal training is often variable. Videos of proctological procedures can benefit surgical trainees' self-directed learning. The aim of this study is to evaluate the quality of freely available online video material on proctological procedures using a modified colorectal video assessment framework.
methodsPubMed and the YouTube™ platform were searched for the following terms related to proctological procedures for haemorrhoids, anal fissure and fistula. These were assessed (cross-sectional study) for quality using a modified video-assessment checklist that was validated by three colorectal surgeons who regularly perform proctology cases. The resulting 9-item evaluation tool was designed to capture the extent to which videos provide concise and structured information typically required for peer review.
resultsA total of 98 surgical videos were assessed, comprising 65 from peer-reviewed. Journals and 35 from YouTube™ only. The median total score for peer-reviewed videos was 16.0 (interquartile range [IQR] 13.0-17.0) compared to 10 (IQR 8.0-12.0) for the non-peer-reviewed videos. This difference was statistically significant (Mann-Whitney U = 2024.0, p < 0.001). In particular, journal videos were significantly better at providing more contextual information about the case including presenting symptoms and outcomes.
conclusionAs might be expected, the quality of YouTube™ videos from the perspective of proctology training was inferior to those released online by peer-reviewed journals. This provides further evidence for the validity of using modified checklists to assess the quality of training materials. Given the findings of this study, trainees should be encouraged to prioritise journal-related over other freely available material for self-directed learning.
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.