ArticleOman journal of ophthalmology
Exploring global variations in the quality of patient information videos for keratoplasty.
Article in Oman journal of ophthalmology. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealthcare information is easily accessible on YouTube; however, it is unregulated and the quality varies considerably. This study evaluates the causes for variation in the quality of corneal transplantation patient information videos on YouTube.
methodsYouTube was searched using "corneal transplant" and the variations for penetrating and lamellar transplants. The results were deduplicated and screened for inclusion by two independent reviewers. A modified DISCERN tool was used to evaluate the quality of each video by two observers independently. Differences in quality were assessed by production location and legality of direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising.
resultsTwenty-two videos were included in this study and the mean overall DISCERN score was 2.05 out of 5 (standard deviation = 1.09). Videos scored the highest in relevance to corneal transplant (mean 4.05) and lowest in explaining which patients are unsuitable (mean 1.00) and supporting shared decision-making (mean 1.05). The video with highest viewer engagement was created by McMaster University students. Videos produced in the United States (US) discussed uncertainty and risk less frequently (49% and 43% less, respectively [
conclusionsQuality of YouTube content is variable and the lack of clarity over corneal transplant subtypes can be confusing for patients. There is considerable scope to improve visuals within videos to supplement verbal information in clinic, alongside tailoring information to the relevant age demographic. Essential components frequently lacking include risk, especially where DTC advertising is legal. While videos may be a useful supplement they should not be relied on for comprehensive material.
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.