Öz
Amaç:
Çalışmanın amacı Youtube’daki kemik tümörleri ile alakalı videoların kalitesini ve güvenilirliğini değerlendirmektir.
Yöntem:
Youtube arama sekmesine anahtar kelime olan ‘bone tumors’ yazılarak ilk çıkan 50 video çalışmaya dahil edildi. Videolar iki ortopedik cerrah tarafından analiz edildiler. Tüm videolar uzunluk, izlenme sayısı, like sayısı ve videonun kaynağı bilgileri ile analiz edildiler. Videoların kalitesini değerlendirmek için Global Kalite skoru (GKS) (score range: 0-4), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) (0-5) ve DISCERN (15-75) skorlama sistemleri kullanıldı. Elde edilen veriler bu skorlama sistemlerine göre istatistiksel olarak analiz edildiler.
Bulgular:
Analiz edilen 50 videodan 4 (%8) video animasyon içeriyorken 46 (%92) video ise içermiyordu, 12 (%24) video hekimler, 23 (%46) video sağlık kanalı, 10 (%20) video üniversite, 3 (%6) video klinik, 1 (%2) video hastane, 1 (%2) video ise trainer tarafından eklenmişti. Ortalama video uzunluğu 16 dakika 18 saniye (38-6,088 saniye), ortalama izlenme sayısı 14856,24 (41-84,253), ortalama like sayısı 130,50 (1-1,448) idi. Ortalama GKS skoru 2,22 (1-4), ortalama JAMA 2,12 (1-3), ortalama Discern skoru ise 33,48 (17-66) idi. Her iki araştırmacı arasında skorlama sistemleri ve video uzunluğu, beğeni sayısı ve izlenme oranları açısından istatistiksel olarak fark yoktu.
Sonuç:
Kemik tümörleri ile alakalı Youtube videolarının kalitesi düşüktür. Bu durum iyileştirilerek malignitesi olan hastalara daha doğru enformasyon sağlanabilir ve hastalar daha doğru bilgilerle tedavi süreçlerini devam ettirebilirler.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Kemik tümörleri, video analizi, video kalitesi, youtube
Kaynakça
Statistics for YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/yt/press. Accessed April 23, 2019.
Drozd B, Couvillon E, Suarez A. Medical YouTube videos and methods of evaluation: literature review. JMIR Med Educ 2018;4(1):e3.
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-E1339.
Staunton PF, Baker JF, Green J, Devitt A. Online curves: a quality analysis of scoliosis videos on YouTube. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2015;40(23):1857-1861.
Samuel N, Alotaibi NM, Lozano AM. YouTube as a source of information on neurosurgery. World Neurosurg 2017;105:394-398.
Kunst H, Groot D, Latthe MP, Latthe M, Khan KS. Accuracy of information on apparently credible websites: survey of five common health topics. BMJ 2002;324(7337):581-582.
AbouZahr C, Boerma T. Health information systems: The foundations of public health. Bull World Health Organ 2005;83(8):578-583.
Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: Caveant lector et vieworeLet the reader and viewer beware. JAMA 1997;277(15):1244-1245.
Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health 1999;53(2):105-111.
Weil AG, Bojanowski MW, Jamart J, Gustin T, Lévêque M. Evaluation of the quality of information on the Internet available to patients undergoing cervical spine surgery. World Neurosurg 2014;82(1-2):e31-e39.
Cassidy JT, Baker JF. Orthopaedic patient information on the World Wide Web: an essential review. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016;98(4):325-338.
Madathil KC, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Greenstein JS, Gramopadhye AK. Healthcare information on YouTube: a systematic review. Health Informatics J. 2015;21(3):173-94.
Gokcen HB, Gumussuyu G. A quality analysis of disc herniation videos on YouTube. World Neurosurg 2019; S1878-8750(19)30243-30246.
Ovenden CD, Brooks FM. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion YouTube videos as a source of patient education. Asian Spine J 2018;12:(6)987-991.
Fat MJL, Doja A, Barrowman N, Sell E. YouTube videos as a teaching tool and patient resource for infantile spasms. J Child Neurol 2011;26(7):804-809.
Tartaglione JP, Rosenbaum AJ, Abousayed M, Hushmendy SF, DiPreta JA. Evaluating the quality, accuracy, and readability of online resources pertaining to hallux valgus. Foot Ankle Spec 2016;9(1):17-23.
Kumar N, Pandey A, Venkatraman A, Garg N. Are video sharing web sites a useful source of information on hypertension? J Am Soc Hypertens 2014;8(7):481-490.
Lee JS, Seo HS, Hong TH. YouTube as a source of patient information on gallstone disease. World J Gastroenterol 2014;20(14):4066-4070.
Madathil KC, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Greenstein JS, Gramopadhye AK. Healthcare information on YouTube: a systematic review. Health Informatics J 2015;21(3):173-194.
Cooper CP, Gelb CA, Chu J. Gynecologic Cancer Information on Youtube: Will Women Watch Advertisements to Learn More? J Cancer Educ 2016;31(3):602-604.
Cassidy JT, Fitzgerald E, Cassidy ES, Cleary M, Byrne DP, Devitt BM, et al. YouTube provides poor information regarding anterior cruciate ligament injury and reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2018;26(3):840-845.
Staunton PF, Baker JF, Green J, Devitt A. Online curves: a quality analysis of scoliosis videos on YouTube. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2015;40(23):1857-1861.
MacLeod MG, Hoppe DJ, Simunovic N, Bhandari M, Philippon MJ, Ayeni OR. YouTube as an information source for femoroacetabular impingement: a systematic review of video content. Arthroscopy 2015;31(1):136-142.
Fischer J, Geurts J, Valderrabano V, Hügle T. Educational quality of YouTube videos on knee arthrocentesis. J Clin Rheumatol 2013;19(7):373-376.
Morahan-Martin JM. How internet users find, evaluate, and use online health information: a cross-cultural review. Cyberpsychol Behav 2004;7(5):497-510.
Kucukakkas O, Atar E, Berberoglu AH, Karaman CA, Korkmaz MB. (2019). YouTube as an information source for intra-articuler knee injection. Annals of Medical Research 2019;26(5)918-923.
