ISSN: 1300 - 6525 E-ISSN: 2149 - 0880
kulak burun boğaz
ve baş boyun cerrahisi dergisi
http://dergi.kbb-bbc.org.tr
Koşulsuz Destek Verenler
Kayıtlı İndeksler





ORIGINAL RESEARCH

The Reliability and Viewer Interest of YouTube® Videos Presenting Endoscopic Ear Procedures
Endoskopik Kulak Prosedürlerini Gösteren YouTube® Videolarının Güvenilirliği ve İzleyici İlgisi
Received Date : 22 Nov 2021
Accepted Date : 15 Dec 2021
Available Online : 28 Dec 2021
Doi: 10.24179/kbbbbc.2021-87187 - Makale Dili: EN
KBB ve BBC Dergisi. 2022;30(2):63-9
Copyright © 2020 by Turkey Association of Society of Ear Nose Throat and Head Neck Surgery. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
ABSTRACT
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and viewer interests of YouTube® endoscopic ear surgery videos based on the LAP‑VEGaS video quality assessment tool. Material and Methods: The present study evaluated 720 videos after a search on YouTube® with the keywords “endoscopic tympanoplasty, endoscopic ear surgery, endoscopic myringoplasty, and endoscopic mastoidectomy” during the time period between October 2005 to June 2020. The parameters depicting viewer interest such as the total number of views, comments, subscribers, likes, dislikes, source of videos, and video upload date were assessed. Besides, LAP‑VEGaS video quality assessment tool were also analyzed. Results: Among 720 videos that were compatible with the keywords of the study, only 201 (27%) of them were in agreement with the inclusion criteria. Low-quality videos comprised 164 (81.5%) videos, and high-quality videos consisted of 37 (18.5%) videos. The video rates presented by universities were higher in the high-quality video group than the low-quality video group (29.7% vs. 9.1%). Considering the didactic voice and the presence of didactic steps, it was significantly higher in the high-quality video group compared to the low-quality video group (86.5% vs. 22.6%, p<0.001; 97.3% vs. 85.4%, p: 0.04, respectively). The higher image quality was observed in the high-quality group compared to the low-quality quality group (81.1% vs. 27.4%, p<0.001). Conclusion: Overall, only 18.5% of YouTube® videos were defined as high-quality videos. The videos classified in the high-quality group were presented by university hospitals, with better didactic information and voice.
ÖZET
Amaç: Bu çalışma, LAP‑VEGaS video kalite değerlendirme anketine dayalı olarak YouTube® endoskopik kulak cerrahisi videolarının güvenilirliğini ve izleyicilerin ilgisini değerlendirmeyi amaçlamıştır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu çalışmada, YouTube®’da “endoskopik timpanoplasti, endoskopik kulak cerrahisi, endoskopik miringoplasti ve endoskopik mastoidektomi” anahtar kelimeleri ile Ekim 2005-Haziran 2020 arasında yapılan bir aramanın ardından 720 video değerlendirildi. Toplam izlenme sayısı, yorumlar, aboneler, beğeniler, beğenmemeler, videoların kaynağı ve video yükleme tarihi gibi izleyici ilgisini gösteren parametreler değerlendirildi. Ayrıca LAP‑VEGaS video kalitesi değerlendirme anketi de analiz edildi. Bulgular: Araştırmanın anahtar kelimeleri ile uyumlu 720 videodan sadece 201’i (%27) dâhil edilme kriterlerine uyuyordu. Düşük kaliteli videolar 164 (%81,5) videodan ve yüksek kaliteli videolar 37 (%18,5) videodan oluşuyordu. Üniversitelerin sunduğu video oranları, yüksek kaliteli video grubunda düşük kaliteli video grubuna göre daha yüksekti (%29,7’ye karşı %9,1). Didaktik ses ve didaktik adımların varlığı, yüksek kaliteli video grubunda düşük kaliteli video grubuna göre anlamlı olarak daha yüksekti (sırasıyla %86,5’e karşı %22,6, p<0,001; %97,3’e karşı %85,4, p: 0,04). Düşük kaliteli gruba kıyasla yüksek kaliteli grupta daha yüksek görüntü kalitesi gözlendi (%81,1’e karşı %27,4, p<0,001). Sonuç: Genel olarak YouTube® videolarının yalnızca %18,5’i yüksek kaliteli videolar olarak tanımlandı. Yüksek kaliteli grupta sınıflandırılan videolar, üniversite hastaneleri tarafından daha iyi didaktik bilgi ve ses ile sunuldu.
KAYNAKLAR
  1. Akyigit A, Sakallıoglu O, Karlidag T. Endoscopic tympanoplasty. J Otol. 2017;12(2):62-7. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC] 
  2. Tarabichi M. Endoscopic transcanal middle ear surgery. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010;62(1):6-24. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC] 
  3. Ferhatoglu MF, Kartal A, Ekici U, Gurkan A. Evaluation of the reliability, utility, and quality of the information in sleeve gastrectomy videos shared on open access video sharing platform YouTube. Obes Surg. 2019;29(5):1477-84. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  4. Snelson C. YouTube across the disciplines: a review of the literature. MERLOT J Online Learn Teach. 2011;7(1):159-69. [Link] 
  5. Lee JS, Seo HS, Hong TH. YouTube as a source of patient information on gallstone disease. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(14): 4066-70. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC] 
  6. Steinberg PL, Wason S, Stern JM, Deters L, Kowal B, Seigne J. YouTube as source of prostate cancer information. Urology. 2010;75(3):619-22. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  7. Strychowsky JE, Nayan S, Farrokhyar F, MacLean J. YouTube: a good source of information on pediatric tonsillectomy? Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;77(6):972-5. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  8. Shires CB, Wilson CD, Sebelik M. Thyroid surgery YouTube videos: estimating quality by surgeon characteristics and view rate. Gland Surg. 2019;8(3):207-11. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC] 
  9. Kaya C, Usta T, Baghaki HS, Oral E. Relation between educational reliability and viewer interest in YouTube® videos depicting endometrioma cystectomy surgical techniques. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2021;50(3): 101808. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  10. Chauvet P, Botchorishvili R, Curinier S, Gremeau AS, Campagne-Loiseau S, Houlle C, et al. What is a good teaching video? Results of an online international survey. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27(3):738-47. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  11. Barber SR, Chari DA, Quesnel AM. Teaching endoscopic ear surgery. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2021;54(1):65-74. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  12. Erdem MN, Karaca S. Evaluating the accuracy and quality of the information in kyphosis videos shared on YouTube. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018;43(22):E1334-E9. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  13. Celentano V, Smart N, Cahill RA, Spinelli A, Giglio MC, McGrath J, et al. Development and validation of a recommended checklist for assessment of surgical videos quality: the LAParoscopic surgery Video Educational GuidelineS (LAP-VEGaS) video assessment tool. Surg Endosc. 2021;35(3):1362-9. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC] 
  14. Ocak U. Evaluation of the content, quality, reliability and accuracy of YouTube videos regarding endotracheal intubation techniques. Niger J Clin Pract. 2018;21(12):1651-5. [PubMed] 
  15. Romanov K, Nevgi A. Do medical students watch video clips in eLearning and do these facilitate learning? Med Teach. 2007;29(5):484-8. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  16. Desai T, Shariff A, Dhingra V, Minhas D, Eure M, Kats M. Is content really king? An objective analysis of the public's response to medical videos on YouTube. PLoS One. 2013;8(12): e82469. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC] 
  17. Şahin A, Şahin M, Türkcü FM. YouTube as a source of information in retinopathy of prematurity. Ir J Med Sci. 2019;188(2):613-7. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  18. Brooks FM, Lawrence H, Jones A, McCarthy MJ. YouTube™ as a source of patient information for lumbar discectomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2014;96(2):144-6. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC] 
  19. Madathil KC, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Greenstein JS, Gramopadhye AK. Healthcare information on YouTube: A systematic review. Health Informatics J. 2015;21(3):173-94. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  20. Bezner SK, Hodgman EI, Diesen DL, Clayton JT, Minkes RK, Langer JC, et al. Pediatric surgery on YouTube™: is the truth out there? J Pediatr Surg. 2014;49(4):586-9. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  21. Nissan ME, Gupta A, Rayess H, Black KZ, Carron M. Otoplasty online information: a comprehensive analysis of the websites and videos that patients view regarding cosmetic ear surgery. Facial Plast Surg. 2018;34(1):82-7. [PubMed] 
  22. Enver N, Doruk C, Kara H, Gürol E, Incaz S, Mamadova U. YouTube™ as an information source for larynx cancer: a systematic review of video content. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;277(7):2061-9. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  23. Biggs TC, Bird JH, Harries PG, Salib RJ. YouTube as a source of information on rhinosinusitis: the good, the bad and the ugly. J Laryngol Otol. 2013;127(8):749-54. [Crossref]  [PubMed]